Inside-edges on to the pads

[Lillian Thomson]

But that's not illegal now. If they are pitching outside leg, and the deliveries are turning enough to come back onto hitting the stumps, it is legitimate as far as I am concerned.

In that case it's fortunate that you don't make the rules.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's not negative if its going to hit the stumps anyway.

It's negative because it's giving the bowler incentive to bowl outside legstump, making it harder for the batsman to score runs and generally for the game to progress. The rule is meant to encourage the bowlers to attack the stumps, which means to actually aim for them.

Plus, bodyline isn't really possible with the fielding restrictions and the two bouncers per over rule.

Bodyline doesn't necessarily pertain to the bouncer law though. Strictly enforced, a bouncer would pertain to a ball that rears up into the chest region. But umpires don't tend to show any real consistency of such a consideration, from my experience.

The fielding restrictions and bouncer law deter bodyline bowling, but don't on their own prevent it. It's the same with the lbw law. None prevent it, but all work together in attempts at doing so.

 

[Richard]

Bat before wicket. Genius!

 

[silentstriker]

It's negative because it's giving the bowler incentive to bowl outside legstump, making it harder for the batsman to score runs and generally for the game to progress. The rule is meant to encourage the bowlers to attack the stumps, which means to actually aim for them.

Fair enough - though I don't think it'll be a big problem.

Bodyline doesn't necessarily pertain to the bouncer law though. Strictly enforced, a bouncer would pertain to a ball that rears up into the chest region. But umpires don't tend to show any real consistency of such a consideration, from my experience.

But if you bowl chest high at someone, that's just fine from a cricketing point of view. We certainly shouldn't have rules to stop that. Learn to play the pull. I can see having rules to stop balls at people's heads and such (though I think more than two should be allowed per over). Due to the restrictions on fielding, if you tried bodyline, it may or may not intimidate the batsman, but you probably wouldn't get as many wickets.

 

[Glacier]

Bat before wicket. Genius!

Well its better then first chance theory.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well its better then first chance theory.

They both have equal merit.....none.
Anyway it would have to be Bat Before Leg Before Wicket as Bat Before Wicket implies that anything that hits the bat that would have hits the stumps would be out whether it went on to hit the leg or not.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I do think the rule regarding the ball pitching outside leg is stupid

It's a view I've always had time for. Balls which pitch fractions outside leg and that would go on to hit the stumps can be a legitimate attacking option. In fact one occasionally sees them given by the umpire, however erroneous in law the decision is. The most recent example I can think of being Tharanga falling to Harmison in the first innings of the third test. In real time it looked stone-dead, so is it really fair to deny a bowler a wicket in such instances?

Historically it has been an important rule to prevent teams bowling an overly negative, defensive line, but since the advent of "Ashley's law" (umpires now having the option to no-ball bowlers who persist with a negative, leg-side line after Mr Giles pitched several thousand outside Sachin's leg stump on our last-but-one tour to India) this isn't necessarily such a problem.

 

[Richard]

Well its better then first chance theory.

 

[Richard]

Historically it has been an important rule to prevent teams bowling an overly negative, defensive line, but since the advent of "Ashley's law" (umpires now having the option to no-ball bowlers who persist with a negative, leg-side line after Mr Giles pitched several thousand outside Sachin's leg stump on our last-but-one tour to India) this isn't necessarily such a problem.

I'm not 100% sure it is. I think it's more designed to prevent bowlers bowling like Warne (read any half-decent wristspinner) pitching into the footholes outside the right-hander's leg-stump and being able to get the lbw. If one could do this, all one would need to do is bowl wristspin and batsmen's chances of scoring anything of note would range between nil and negligable.

I think the idea is more to stop attack being too easy, than to allow what is currently defence to become attack.

 

[TT Boy]

Bat before wicket. Genius!

Rudi Koertzen usually gives you out for that, so he must be a fan of the idea or maybe his just a poor umpire...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Historically the rule was very simple, bowlers had to bowl wicket to wicket to get an LBW. They only started meddling with it when batsman started deliberately padding the ball away - notably Cowdrey and his mate during that famous stand against Ramadin and Valentine - hence being able to be out LBW not playing a shot came in. The leg side rule needs no amendment whatsoever and many older players/spectators would dispute the need for the off-side rule.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not 100% sure it is. I think it's more designed to prevent bowlers bowling like Warne (read any half-decent wristspinner) pitching into the footholes outside the right-hander's leg-stump and being able to get the lbw. If one could do this, all one would need to do is bowl wristspin and batsmen's chances of scoring anything of note would range between nil and negligable.

I think the idea is more to stop attack being too easy, than to allow what is currently defence to become attack.

I think Warne was actually one of the first bowlers to be no-balled for bowling precisely the line you speak of. He was indignant because he was of the opinion he was attacking the stumps. Just because he can turn a ball two-feet doesn't mean he will every time.

I think it's a rule that, if implemented, would have to be closely policed to prevent abuse; which in itself is a good argument for maintaining the status quo, I guess. I'm not so convinced that batsmen will find it hard to score if a bowler persists with a leg-side line as you are tho. Thanks to DRJ & co a team can't station more than two men behind square on the on-side, so in theory at least there should be ample gaps to find.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's a view I've always had time for. Balls which pitch fractions outside leg and that would go on to hit the stumps can be a legitimate attacking option. In fact one occasionally sees them given by the umpire, however erroneous in law the decision is. The most recent example I can think of being Tharanga falling to Harmison in the first innings of the third test. In real time it looked stone-dead, so is it really fair to deny a bowler a wicket in such instances?

Agreed somewhat. As the current law stands, I take issue with people criticizing umpires when the ball pitches marginally outside legstump, regardless of the decision. The umpire is meant to give benefit to the batsman if there is any doubt. But if the ball pitches so close to legstump, it's forgivable for the umpire to have no doubt. Alternatively, the umpire may well have a doubt.

I don't agree with the whole analysis of decisions using multiple replays, slow motion and Hawkeye and then commentators stating whether or not a decision was correct. Umpires (on-field) have one look and no slow motion. If there's no doubt, it has to be out. So if an umpire gives an lbw decision out because it looks out in real time, that perfectly fair. Regardless of whether replays show it pitches marginally outside of legstump. Just because a decision is technically incorrect does not make it incorrect in the grand scheme of things. Not until computers replace umpires and start blundering about like all man-made instruments.

 

[Richard]

I think Warne was actually one of the first bowlers to be no-balled for bowling precisely the line you speak of. He was indignant because he was of the opinion he was attacking the stumps. Just because he can turn a ball two-feet doesn't mean he will every time.

Think it's being wided rather than no-balled, but yes, I seem to recall the occasion was last winter when he (and possibly Ponting) elected - successfully - to use the tactic to stop Pietersen running riot.

I think it's a rule that, if implemented, would have to be closely policed to prevent abuse; which in itself is a good argument for maintaining the status quo, I guess. I'm not so convinced that batsmen will find it hard to score if a bowler persists with a leg-side line as you are tho. Thanks to DRJ & co a team can't station more than two men behind square on the on-side, so in theory at least there should be ample gaps to find.

Finding the gaps is not the problem; getting bat on ball without considerable risk is. It's no coincidence that, even in this "attack at all costs" time we are currently in, almost invariably the method of choice to deal with bowlers pitching into the rough and turning (potentially) onto the stumps is to pad away, off front foot or back. If this is taken away, as I say, I don't foresee any batsman lasting long against that sort of attack - ergo, that sort of attack will be increased manifoldly.

 

[Richard]

I don't agree with the whole analysis of decisions using multiple replays, slow motion and Hawkeye and then commentators stating whether or not a decision was correct. Umpires (on-field) have one look and no slow motion. If there's no doubt, it has to be out. So if an umpire gives an lbw decision out because it looks out in real time, that perfectly fair. Regardless of whether replays show it pitches marginally outside of legstump. Just because a decision is technically incorrect does not make it incorrect in the grand scheme of things.

I too feel that there is - at least in some quarters, others can be admirably consistent in pointing-out just what you do here - often more criticism of Umpires than is deserved.

I think the best way of phrasing it is that an incorrect decision is not neccessarily a particularly bad one. The Vandort lbw in that game was a bad one - it was patently far too high. The Tharanga one was less so (and that's before we even consider that Tharanga should already have been back in t'hut to t'same bowler anyway).

BTW - if you want to be a part of the meet-up this winter still, get posting in that thread sharpish.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think it's being wided rather than no-balled, but yes, I seem to recall the occasion was last winter when he (and possibly Ponting) elected - successfully - to use the tactic to stop Pietersen running riot.

Finding the gaps is not the problem; getting bat on ball without considerable risk is. It's no coincidence that, even in this "attack at all costs" time we are currently in, almost invariably the method of choice to deal with bowlers pitching into the rough and turning (potentially) onto the stumps is to pad away, off front foot or back. If this is taken away, as I say, I don't foresee any batsman lasting long against that sort of attack - ergo, that sort of attack will be increased manifoldly.

Yeah, you're right actually. It is wided.

With regards to your second paragraph tho, why is a batsman having to use his bat a bad thing? LT observes that the last major LBW change was to restrict pad-play, so is there a case that we're due another? Batsmen are generally agreed to have had the better of things lately, could (or maybe should) the balance be readdressed?

I take your point about the increase of leg-side bowling tho and it is something that would need to be policed very tightly. Any ball to which a batsman couldn't play a legitimate cricket shot to should be wided to prevent abuse.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, you're right actually. It is wided.

With regards to your second paragraph tho, why is a batsman having to use his bat a bad thing? LT observes that the last major LBW change was to restrict pad-play, so is there a case that we're due another? Batsmen are generally agreed to have had the better of things lately, could (or maybe should) the balance be readdressed?

I take your point about the increase of leg-side bowling tho and it is something that would need to be policed very tightly. Any ball to which a batsman couldn't play a legitimate cricket shot to should be wided to prevent abuse.

That's the key point there, and I completely agree. If you can play a legitimate cricketing shot (not sure if you could count the sweep as one ), its not a wide.

 

[Richard]

With regards to your second paragraph tho, why is a batsman having to use his bat a bad thing? LT observes that the last major LBW change was to restrict pad-play, so is there a case that we're due another? Batsmen are generally agreed to have had the better of things lately, could (or maybe should) the balance be readdressed?

I take your point about the increase of leg-side bowling tho and it is something that would need to be policed very tightly. Any ball to which a batsman couldn't play a legitimate cricket shot to should be wided to prevent abuse.

It would indeed redress things to make lbws permissable for balls pitching outside leg... so much so that batsmen would find scoring almost impossible (I reckon). Wide tallies might go up manifestly, but who in The World wouldn't be willing to concede 60 or 70 wides an innings if it meant few batsman ever reached much more than 20?

And would that really be something we wanted to see?

Of course, the only way to find-out would be to trial it - and rather a drastic trial it would be.

 

[silentstriker]

It would indeed redress things to make lbws permissable for balls pitching outside leg... so much so that batsmen would find scoring almost impossible (I reckon). Wide tallies might go up manifestly, but who in The World wouldn't be willing to concede 60 or 70 wides an innings if it meant few batsman ever reached much more than 20?

And would that really be something we wanted to see?

Of course, the only way to find-out would be to trial it - and rather a drastic trial it would be.

Well, I'd assume we would trial this in ODI/FC cricket for two or more years, just to see how bowlers and batsmen adapt before even thinking about doing it to Tests. It's too big a change to use Tests as a trial.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The only very remotely possible case for LBW's pitching outside leg stump would be the left arm seamer to the right-handed batsman or the right arm seamer to the left-handed batsman where the ball might pitch a couple of inches outside leg stump and be going on to hit. But if you get into different rules for different types of bowler to different handed batsman it's just way too complicated. There's is no argument for allowing spinners to get LBW's outside leg as any two bit spinner can land it in the foot marks three feet wide and hope for the best, forcing batsman to play at that sort of delivery would be total stupidity.