Ravi Shastri

[marc71178]

You really think that Broadcasting companies would ensure their analysts actually know the rules of the game.

His comment on Flintoff's first innings dismissal was:

"It doesn't matter if the ball is going down leg-side, if you pad up to a ball pitching outside off stump without offering a shot you have to be given out"

So that'll be out under the little known LBMW (Leg Before Missing Wicket) rule then will it?

 

[luckyeddie]

I think that the point he was making was that Flintoff was being an idiot for just thrusting a pad out at a ball which pitched on off stump, and that umpires tend to be a little less 'exact' in their judgement when a batsman offers no shot.

My first thought at the time was that it looked a good decision. It was only 'Hawkeye' which brought it to people's attention that perhaps it wasn't going to hit the stumps.

Tough luck, I say. Pad up to a ball pitching outside leg stump, OK, but on the sticks or outside off? You deserve what you get. That's what the bat is for.

 

[Gotchya]

He was porbably pointing out that Batsmen cannot display such abandon or carelessness while playing outside their offstumps, you rarely see genuine batsmen padding away at anything nowadays.

 

[marc71178]

So why did he say you have to give it out, even if it's not hitting the stumps?

 

[Anil]

If the batsmen go for deliberate padding on the stumps or just outside the off stump to a ball coming in, they have every chance of being given out if the bowler appeals. In this case, I think the benefit of doubt goes to the bowler.

 

[luckyeddie]

Because to the naked eye it looked as though it could have - I'm with Shastri and the umpire on this one. My immediate opinion was 'that's plumb, you plonker Flintoff'. It was only when 'hawkeye' extrapolations were shown that anyone expressed doubt.

IMO, any batsman padding up to a ball outside off stick deserves what he gets. If you're going to play the ball, play it. If you're going to leave the ball, leave it.

Pads are there to stop batsmen getting hurt - they are not an aid to be used in kicking the ball away.

 

[royGilchrist]

Yeah I think Shastri goofed up, his mistake. He obvioulsy would know the rule. In any case its pretty simple that if a ball is missing the stumps its not out, no matter where it pitched and what the batsman was doing.

The tricky part is if the ball would indeed have hit the stumps, then all the factors come in to decide if it would have been out.

As far as I know, the rule says that if the ball was pitched outside the off stump, and the batsman didnt offer a shot then it will be given out if the ball was goin to hit the wicket. Otherwise, if the batsman did offer a shot and the ball was pitched outside off, the batsman cannot be given out even if the ball was going to hit the wickets.

But I think the umps are pretty relaxed about this rule, and even if the batsman offered a shot and the ball was pitched outside off (slightly), the umps these days give it out if they are sure that the ball would have hit the stumps. I have seen this happen many times, and even the commentators kind of turn a blind eye towards it. If anyone thinks I'm worng please correct me.

Ball pitched outside the leg obviously is not out.

 

[marc71178]

To be honest Eddie, I hadn't seen any comment on any dismissals until I saw it on the highlights, and my gut instinct was that it was doing too much to hit the stumps.

Still at least England won't be accused of getting dodgy LBW's where it pitches outside off and is going down legside - we're lucky if it pitches outside off and clips off stump with our spinners!

 

[luckyeddie]

lol, marc.

We're lucky if our guys pitch it in the batsman's half.