Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 109

Thread: Potential changes to the laws of cricket

  1. #1
    Cricketer Of The Year James90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,572

    Potential changes to the laws of cricket

    Reading over the Laws of Cricket there are some rules I think could be modified or removed entirely. The Kasprowicz incident as Edgbaston is one. Kasper's hand came off the bat, the ball then struck the hand and the catch was taken by Jones. According to the Laws of Cricket this should be not out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law 6.3
    Hand or glove to count as part of the bat
    In these laws,
    (a) reference to the bat shall imply if the bat is held by the batsman
    (b) contact between the ball and...
    either (i) the striker's bat itself
    or (ii) the striker's hand holding the bat
    or (iii) any part of a glove worn on the strikers hand holding the bat shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being struck by the bat
    So technically the other hand is not part of the bat (makes sense because it is not in contact with the bat at all). I just find something unsettling about a player being struck on the gloves. Had the glove been on the bat then the catch would have been clean. Had the hand deliberately come in contact with the ball off the bat it would have been "handled the ball". So why if a batsman is so poor as to remove his hand from the bat and then unintentionally come in contact with the ball does it justify him being not out.

    In accordance with this runs should also be able to be scored from the same scenario. Simply change the rules to say "either the bat or hands or glove worn on the strikers hands".

    Your thoughts?
    Stedders' Supported XI (in batting order)
    NJ Kruger, *SM Katich, LA Carseldine, MEK Hussey, Mohammad Ashraful, NT Broom, AA Noffke, +Mushfiqur Rahim, Mashrafe Mortaza, DE Bollinger, WAP Mendis.

    CricketWeb Black!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I think Ponting forgot to take his Swiss Ulti-Vites when he was on 99 not out.
    RIP Fardin.

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    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
    You know it makes sense.

  3. #3
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,674
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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
    Was thinking that this morning when Symonds edged onto his pads - not because I'm a whinging pom, but for the reasons you just stated. If the batsman's pads prevent the ball from hitting the stumps, should be LBW IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  4. #4
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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
    That's an excellent and original idea. How much of an impact do you think it might have on totals, though? There's usually at least 1 or 2 examples of this during each innings I watch, so we could be talking about knocking around 70 or 80 off each innings' total. Works for me.


  5. #5
    Global Moderator nightprowler10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Madhouse on Madison
    Posts
    14,230
    Wouldn't it be hard to judge whether the ball would've hit the stumps after taking the edge? I've seen instances where the ball would've completely missed the stumps when looked at in slo-mo, but in real time it looked as though it would hit the stumps.
    RIP Craigos

  6. #6
    Cricketer Of The Year James90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,572
    Yeah that's a very good call. However the rule in the first post would make it easier for umpires.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    23,856
    Quote Originally Posted by nightprowler10 View Post
    Wouldn't it be hard to judge whether the ball would've hit the stumps after taking the edge? I've seen instances where the ball would've completely missed the stumps when looked at in slo-mo, but in real time it looked as though it would hit the stumps.
    Yeah, in many cases it would be too hard to predict what would happen you'd imagine, given that the bat would be fairly close to the pads.

    As it is, I don't see any problem with the LBW laws. I mean, it's not as if teams are continually making 600 runs every innings as bowlers fail to get them out, and we're hardly seeing defensive cricket in terms of batting (which was, IIRC, why the LBW laws were brought in in the first place). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

  8. #8
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,674
    Quote Originally Posted by andyc View Post
    Yeah, in many cases it would be too hard to predict what would happen you'd imagine, given that the bat would be fairly close to the pads.

    As it is, I don't see any problem with the LBW laws. I mean, it's not as if teams are continually making 600 runs every innings as bowlers fail to get them out, and we're hardly seeing defensive cricket in terms of batting (which was, IIRC, why the LBW laws were brought in in the first place). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    Just because it isn't broken doesn't mean it couldn't work better

  9. #9
    Cricketer Of The Year James90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,572
    Here's a strange one that I'm not too sure about

    Quote Originally Posted by Law 32.3
    A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if...

    b) The ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing, or in the case of a wicket-keeper in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder.
    Why the hell not? If it's a legal catch if accidentally caught in the clothing then why not the helmet? Doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

  10. #10
    Global Moderator nightprowler10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Madhouse on Madison
    Posts
    14,230
    Quote Originally Posted by James90 View Post
    Why the hell not? If it's a legal catch if accidentally caught in the clothing then why not the helmet? Doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
    If the ball hits the helmet of a player from the fielding side, it is deemed a dead ball. So obviously it cannot be out if its a dead ball.

  11. #11
    Cricketer Of The Year James90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,572
    Are you meaning to say if the batsman hit the ball into the helmet of a short leg fieldsman and then ballooned in the air it couldn't be caught? Are we encouraging fielders to not protect their head from the ball or in fact the sun.
    Last edited by James90; 03-01-2007 at 06:33 AM.

  12. #12
    Cricketer Of The Year James90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,572
    Quote Originally Posted by James90 View Post
    Are you meaning to say if the batsman hit the ball into the helmet of a short leg fieldsman and then ballooned in the air it couldn't be caught?
    That's the ball ballooning in the air. Not the batsman just incase you were confused.
    Last edited by James90; 03-01-2007 at 06:34 AM.

  13. #13
    Global Moderator nightprowler10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Madhouse on Madison
    Posts
    14,230
    Quote Originally Posted by James90 View Post
    Are you meaning to say if the batsman hit the ball into the helmet of a short leg fieldsman and then ballooned in the air it couldn't be caught?
    It'd be a dead ball, so the batsman wouldn't be out. In the Karachi test against the Windies Imran Farhat at short leg caught Shiv (I think), but the on field umpires had to refer to the third umpire to make sure the ball hadn't hit the helmet's visor before he caught it.

  14. #14
    Global Moderator nightprowler10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Madhouse on Madison
    Posts
    14,230
    Quote Originally Posted by James90 View Post
    That's the ball ballooning in the air. Not the batsman just incase you were confused.
    I needed that laugh after what happened earlier. Thanks.

  15. #15
    U19 Cricketer albo97056's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    London and UEA Norwich
    Posts
    455
    back about 100 years or so they actually had the inside edge onto pad law change, but it didnt last long cos the umpires said there was no way to tell where the ball was goin, stupid change if u ask me. The law about kicking the ball away from the stumps would have to be changed as well if this was the case as effectively if you kick it away its lbw and then the umpires would have to say whether the bails would have been knocked off by a ball trickling on to the stumps! Crazy

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-08-2006, 02:53 PM
  2. Cricket Web - Fantasy Cricket Survey
    By James in forum Fantasy Cricket
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 03:02 AM
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-10-2005, 04:44 PM
  4. Replies: 1876
    Last Post: 23-09-2005, 04:21 PM
  5. Cricket Web - Fantasy Cricket - T&N Trophy Challenge IV
    By James in forum Cricket Web Forum Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-12-2004, 03:24 AM

Posting Permissions

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