Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?

  1. #1
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,268

    THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?

    It is now well over 60 years since the LBW rule was last ammended. It has since remained unchanged. There has always been a debate that it should be modified. Amongst those who suggest that was the Don on whose (besides others including Larwood) the last change was made to declare a batsman out even if the ball pitched outside the off stump.

    It was argued then, and the arguement holds, that batsmen were offering the pad too often in defense AND leg theory was becoming popular since bowlers did not benefit from great bowling aimed at our just outside the off stump.

    Bradman argued, then and throughout his life, that the law should have gone further and a batsman should be declared out EVEN if the point of contact was outside the off stump and he did offer a stroke.

    This would

    a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour which it was becoming
    b) Reduce the inclination for negative (leg stump and outside) bowling.
    c) Give boost to spinners
    d) Make for more attractive cricket since batsmen would have to play more often

    Opinions please ??

    I have always been for it.

  2. #2
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    45,406
    Excellent topic for discussion!

    I'd actually go further! If a ball pitches outside the leg-stump but strikes the batter in line with the stumps why not change the law to allow LBW decisions? If the ball pitches outside leg but seams or turns back to hit the stumps the batter is out, so why the rule about no leg-befores when the ball pitches outside leg?

    I guess the counter argument is that this would encourage negative bowling, but the umpires have discretion to warn bowlers for excessively negative bowling, so why not give it a try?
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
    - Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence

  3. #3
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
    Excellent topic for discussion!

    I'd actually go further! If a ball pitches outside the leg-stump but strikes the batter in line with the stumps why not change the law to allow LBW decisions? If the ball pitches outside leg but seams or turns back to hit the stumps the batter is out, so why the rule about no leg-befores when the ball pitches outside leg?

    I guess the counter argument is that this would encourage negative bowling, but the umpires have discretion to warn bowlers for excessively negative bowling, so why not give it a try?
    Well you have yourself stated the major arguement against it. This is one discretion that would be most contentious.

    I think it would be a good idea to start with the off side onan experimental basis and see what impact it has on the game, the balance between bat and ball etc. before deciding further.

    It is genrally accepted that leg side bowling cramps up the batsman more and is more used for negative tactics. This has always been the case over the history of the game.

  4. #4
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,171
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    This would

    a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour

    I have no doubt in my mind that you are absolutely right here ......
    Proud member of Twenty20-Is-Boring Society.
    T2IBS Media relations officer
    T2IBS official face
    R.I..P ........ Fardin Qayuumi
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Good luck at the hospital.
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Fraz is always the best option IMO
    frazbest@hotmail.com


  5. #5
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Hexxagon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Are there any rules as to how far from the stumps at the umpires end can the bowler bowl ?
    Millhouse: you know when your dog ate my goldfish bart and you told me i never had a goldfish, then why did i have the bowl bart! why did i have the bowl!!!!
    Karthik_moo@hotmail.com
    Member of the MSC and the AAAS
    Wanna Search ?
    Waughney : We are well taken care of here at the Rehab centre.

  6. #6
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    It is now well over 60 years since the LBW rule was last ammended. It has since remained unchanged. There has always been a debate that it should be modified. Amongst those who suggest that was the Don on whose (besides others including Larwood) the last change was made to declare a batsman out even if the ball pitched outside the off stump.

    It was argued then, and the arguement holds, that batsmen were offering the pad too often in defense AND leg theory was becoming popular since bowlers did not benefit from great bowling aimed at our just outside the off stump.

    Bradman argued, then and throughout his life, that the law should have gone further and a batsman should be declared out EVEN if the point of contact was outside the off stump and he did offer a stroke.

    This would

    a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour which it was becoming
    b) Reduce the inclination for negative (leg stump and outside) bowling.
    c) Give boost to spinners
    d) Make for more attractive cricket since batsmen would have to play more often

    Opinions please ??

    I have always been for it.
    I think you're dead right on all counts - there's little argument for not giving an lbw when the ball has pitched outside off just because the batter has played a shot. In repsonse to subsequent messages, I wouldn't allow lbw's when the ball has pitched outside leg though.

  7. #7
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Deja moo
    Are there any rules as to how far from the stumps at the umpires end can the bowler bowl ?
    Not as far as the straight line distance goes but if he is going to release the ball so far back that the umpire may not even realise he is about to bowl, I think he has to intimate to the umpire. The umpire may decide to stand at a different location and/or be able to watch if the batsman is ready etc.

    Of course, at right angle to the line of the stumps, he is restricted by the return crease (or an imaginary extension thereof)

  8. #8
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid
    I think you're dead right on all counts - there's little argument for not giving an lbw when the ball has pitched outside off just because the batter has played a shot. In repsonse to subsequent messages, I wouldn't allow lbw's when the ball has pitched outside leg though.
    ...or pretended to play one ...

  9. #9
    International Vice-Captain KennyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Aust
    Posts
    4,077
    perhaps this new rule could be implemented but id like to see it trialed first before making it standard
    Quote Originally Posted by SupaFreak2005
    Well Simon and Xavier hit on all the females but the ladies all want Kenny :naughty:
    Quote Originally Posted by steds
    all 3 of them?

  10. #10
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyD
    perhaps this new rule could be implemented but id like to see it trialed first before making it standard
    Yes. Thats normally always done. Last time it went something like this :-

    1. A trial run in 1935 in first class and second class county games.
    2. Then in 1936 it was tried in all forms of the game.
    3. In 1937 it became a law by unanimous vote.

  11. #11
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Hexxagon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    Not as far as the straight line distance goes but if he is going to release the ball so far back that the umpire may not even realise he is about to bowl, I think he has to intimate to the umpire. The umpire may decide to stand at a different location and/or be able to watch if the batsman is ready etc.

    Of course, at right angle to the line of the stumps, he is restricted by the return crease (or an imaginary extension thereof)

    Yes , thats what I meant. For example, if there were no laws regarding that, we could see a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket, but maybe 10 feet to the left of the stumps at the umpires end . This would be unfair to the batsman (I think) due to the extreme angling in of the delivery .And if it pitched way outside off ( as it would in this case) , and hit the batsman putside off, but going on to hit the stumps , I think that would be a very unfair way for the batsman to be dismissed .

  12. #12
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Deja moo
    Yes , thats what I meant. For example, if there were no laws regarding that, we could see a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket, but maybe 10 feet to the left of the stumps at the umpires end . This would be unfair to the batsman (I think) due to the extreme angling in of the delivery .And if it pitched way outside off ( as it would in this case) , and hit the batsman putside off, but going on to hit the stumps , I think that would be a very unfair way for the batsman to be dismissed .
    Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

    PS : Incidentaly, there is nothing on which the square leg umpire can not , of his own accord, inform, advise, counsel his copunterpart at the bowliners end.

  13. #13
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.
    And, of course, once forced to bowl within the return crease, the bowler would actually suffer rather than gain as far as the angle of delivery is concerned , the further he went back.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    No
    Member of CW Green
    Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator

  15. #15
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Hexxagon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

    PS : Incidentaly, there is nothing on which the square leg umpire can not , of his own accord, inform, advise, counsel his copunterpart at the bowliners end.

    I think we are talking about different planes .


    I gather that when you say ( look at bold part of quote) , you mean that the bowler might be bowling the same line ( ie; the line more or less parallel to the line connecting the two stumps at the opposite ends of the wicket) , but from further back ( ie 23 or 24 or more yards from the batsman instead of the normal 22)

    What I meant was , since you say that the front line of the crease is unlimited in length , couldnt the bowler try bowling from more than say 10 feet to the left hand side of the umpire standing at his normal position behind the stumps ?

    If the bowler was allowed lbws from that angle, I think it would be very unfair to the batsman .

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Your Weirdest Backyard Rule?
    By Waughney in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 20-11-2012, 01:22 AM
  2. The first rule of _______ club is....
    By Paid The Umpire in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 23-11-2008, 09:39 PM
  3. Solution for rain rule
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 25-01-2004, 06:44 PM
  4. Should the first fifteen overs rule in ODIs be changed?
    By full_length in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 13-10-2002, 05:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •