Inside-edges on to the pads

[Glacier]

I've just been thinking. Shouldn't they be given out as well? I mean the batsman has been beaten and if the pads weren't in the way he'd be bowled.

 

[Laurrz]

but then would inside edges onto pads be given out if it pops up to a fielder? coz ur imagining if the pads werent in the way

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How can the umpire be certain that the inside edge would have gone on to hit the stumps. Not merely because it hits the pad does it mean it will hit the stumps.

 

[Matt79]

I assume you mean for LBW, as they are given out as catches (if the umpire detects the edge).

Logically I can see you're point in one sense, but it adds another extra element into what is already the hardest part of an umpires job, and if making contact with your bat doesn't stop you being given out 'before wicket', where do you draw the line?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've just been thinking. Shouldn't they be given out as well? I mean the batsman has been beaten and if the pads weren't in the way he'd be bowled.

It's not an entirely original thought. The first person I heard suggest it was Peter Roebuck many years ago during an interval discussion on TMS. He got no agreement from anyone else in the discussion and I don't think the idea has any merit whatsoever. A batsman could edge a ball toward the stumps that wasn't originally going to hit, it's just a further unneccessary complication.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

The one thing I don't understand about the LBW law is why someone can't be given outwhen being hit outside the line of off-stump playing a shot. Surely if the umpire isn't convinced it is hitting the stumps, he just gives it not out.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think I'm right in saying the law was changed to exactly that for one pre-war county championship season, but that it gave the advantage so much to the bowlers the experiment didn't last.

 

[bond21]

no

 

[Goughy]

The LBW is there to deter pad play and encourage the use of the bat. Giving an inside edge on to the pads out is not only impossible to judge but defeats the reasoning behind the LBW law in the first place. ie they hit the ball and played it with the bat.

 

[Glacier]

The LBW is there to deter pad play and encourage the use of the bat. Giving an inside edge on to the pads out is not only impossible to judge but defeats the reasoning behind the LBW law in the first place. ie they hit the ball and played it with the bat.

Yes, but obviously they had no intention of playing it there. And a lot of the time it is going on to hit the stumps. Besides a fair few inside edged LBWs are given out in just about every match. Just make it a law so theres some consistency at least.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes, but obviously they had no intention of playing it there. And a lot of the time it is going on to hit the stumps. Besides a fair few inside edged LBWs are given out in just about every match. Just make it a law so theres some consistency at least.

A fair few in every match? A slight exaggeration there surely...

And are you then saying that a batsman should be punished for a miscue? Because in many many innings there are many many miscued shots. Goughy makes a good point.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, but obviously they had no intention of playing it there. And a lot of the time it is going on to hit the stumps. Besides a fair few inside edged LBWs are given out in just about every match. Just make it a law so theres some consistency at least.

They don't need to change the law for that, they just need to enforce the current law correctly.

 

[Glacier]

They don't need to change the law for that, they just need to enforce the current law correctly.

How will they do that? Unless you bring in video technology theres no way any umpire won't miss a few.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How will they do that? Unless you bring in video technology theres no way any umpire won't miss a few.

So why make things even harder for umpires by them having to judge whether the ball would hit the stumps off an inside edge?

 

[TheLad]

Yes, but obviously they had no intention of playing it there. And a lot of the time it is going on to hit the stumps. Besides a fair few inside edged LBWs are given out in just about every match. Just make it a law so theres some consistency at least.

What about if they hit outside the line of off but the edge makes them hit into the pads in line with the stumps. In your theroy is that out or not out.

 

[silentstriker]

I do think the rule regarding the ball pitching outside leg is stupid, but I wouldn't start giving inside edges out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I do think the rule regarding the ball pitching outside leg is stupid, but I wouldn't start giving inside edges out.

Isn't that meant to discourage bodyline and negative bowling?

 

[silentstriker]

Isn't that meant to discourage bodyline and negative bowling?

It's not negative if its going to hit the stumps anyway. Plus, bodyline isn't really possible with the fielding restrictions and the two bouncers per over rule.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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

It can be negative if the spinners are just bowling very wide into the foot marks outside leg stump, so the rule prevents batsman from having to play at those deliveries.

 

[silentstriker]

It can be negative if the spinners are just bowling very wide into the foot marks outside leg stump, so the rule prevents batsman from having to play at those deliveries.

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.