Potential changes to the laws of cricket

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree

Also I think they should change the LBW law to help the bowler. I would suggest it should still be out even if the batsman gets an edge into his pad. After all it is out bowled if the ball hits the bat first

Yeah, but the law is "leg before wicket". If the batsman hits it into his pad, he's hit the ball legitimately and isn't stopping it with his leg at all. Add to that the fact that it makes it much more difficult to determine whether or not the ball would have hit the stumps if there is an edge and I think this would be an impractical law. They could alter the LBW law in other ways to favour the bowlers, such as removing the requirement that the batsman be hit in line.

 

[Speersy]

It is a good rule, I don't think that there should be any changes to it. I hat when Cricket is dominated by lbw's

 

[PottedMustard]

Okay, keep the LBW rule as it is, but batsmen should be allowed to leave no more than 3 balls in each over. If they fail to conclusively get bat on ball on at least 3 occasions, then they are subjected to a 1 run penalty per miss, rising to a maximum of 3 per over.

 

[adharcric]

Okay, keep the LBW rule as it is, but batsmen should be allowed to leave no more than 3 balls in each over. If they fail to conclusively get bat on ball on at least 3 occasions, then they are subjected to a 1 run penalty per miss, rising to a maximum of 3 per over.

No offense but that's ********. As if we don't have enough Sehwags already ...

 

[PottedMustard]

Well, we need to come up with something as, with the exception of England's, batsmen are dominating the game.

 

[PottedMustard]

No offense but that's ********. As if we don't have enough Sehwags already ...

I think Sehwag's a one-off, isn't he? Surely only Hayden can match him in terms of consistent unreliability?

 

[adharcric]

I think Sehwag's a one-off, isn't he? Surely only Hayden can match him in terms of consistent unreliability?

That's not the point. It's a terrible idea, period. The leave is an essential aspect of test batsmanship.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah, but the law is "leg before wicket". If the batsman hits it into his pad, he's hit the ball legitimately and isn't stopping it with his leg at all. Add to that the fact that it makes it much more difficult to determine whether or not the ball would have hit the stumps if there is an edge and I think this would be an impractical law. They could alter the LBW law in other ways to favour the bowlers, such as removing the requirement that the batsman be hit in line.

If it is a big nick then you give it not out, but sometimes it is a tiny little nick that does not seem to change the direction of the ball more then a mm and I would be happy for that to be given out LBW

 

[GIMH]

Well, we need to come up with something as, with the exception of England's, batsmen are dominating the game.

What an idiotic comment; yeah sure, we're getting hammered by Australia, but we reacked up some big runs last summer.

 

[PottedMustard]

Yes, the leave always has been a very important element of test cricket...but test cricket has never faced the ever-increasing shadow cast by the ODI scene to the extent it does now, especially in Asia. Given they seem to hold the reins of the ICC cart-horse, it would be wise, I think, to ensure any changes to the law were designed to make the scoring rate a little higher. Okay, how about saying that if the batting side scores 4 runs in the over, they are allowed to leave the remaining deliveries.

 

[adharcric]

If it is a big nick then you give it not out, but sometimes it is a tiny little nick that does not seem to change the direction of the ball more then a mm and I would be happy for that to be given out LBW

In a way, the purpose of the LBW decision is to screw over batsmen who are using only their legs to avoid being bowled. If you get an inside edge, you're not being quite as cheap so you shouldn't be screwed over. I guess?

 

[PottedMustard]

What an idiotic comment; yeah sure, we're getting hammered by Australia, but we reacked up some big runs last summer.

Trust me, there's not a bigger England optimist than me (eg, I genuinely expect the Aussies to suffer at unexpectedly at our hands in the upcoming ODIs), but we have to face facts.

 

[adharcric]

Yes, the leave always has been a very important element of test cricket...but test cricket has never faced the ever-increasing shadow cast by the ODI scene to the extent it does now, especially in Asia. Given they seem to hold the reins of the ICC cart-horse, it would be wise, I think, to ensure any changes to the law were designed to make the scoring rate a little higher. Okay, how about saying that if the batting side scores 4 runs in the over, they are allowed to leave the remaining deliveries.

How about not making any desperate changes? The rules are fine as they are. Go ahead and make pitches more bowler-friendly. That's all you need. Don't ruin the game, FFS.

 

[PottedMustard]

How about not making any desperate changes? The rules are fine as they are. Go ahead and make pitches more bowler-friendly. That's all you need. Don't ruin the game, FFS.

You shoudn't fear change...

 

[Johnners]

In regards to the LBW law, i'd be inclined to agree with those who've said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" which currently is the case. However, if there was to be a change of the law to favour the bowlers more, i'd like to see batsmen being able to be given out if the ball HAS pitched outside legstump.

 

[Johnners]

You shoudn't fear change...

what your suggesting isn't change though, it's lunacy

 

[PottedMustard]

what your suggesting isn't change though, it's lunacy

I'm not suggesting that my proposal should be drafted into the laws of the game tomorrow, merely using it as a starting point. Clearly you don't want to actually consider the possibility of change, which is fair enough. But don't forget, we'd all be living in caves if nobody had decided there must be a better way...

 

[adharcric]

what your suggesting isn't change though, it's lunacy

Exactly.

 

[adharcric]

I'm not suggesting that my proposal should be drafted into the laws of the game tomorrow, merely using it as a starting point. Clearly you don't want to actually consider the possibility of change, which is fair enough. But don't forget, we'd all be living in caves if nobody had decided there must be a better way...

Uhh, we're not against change. Give us a sensible idea and we'll consider it.

 

[The Sean]

Okay, keep the LBW rule as it is, but batsmen should be allowed to leave no more than 3 balls in each over. If they fail to conclusively get bat on ball on at least 3 occasions, then they are subjected to a 1 run penalty per miss, rising to a maximum of 3 per over.

Should we have the umpire call "steeeeeeeeeerike!" after each one too?