LBW Legside Rule

[Lillian Thomson]

Remind me again, what was the date when the law was changed from has-to-pitch-in-line to has-to-hit-in-line-if-playing-a-shot?

Exact dates I have no idea and don't intend looking it up. I think having to actually pitch in line went out in the late 30's but that's not really a problem. It's having to hit in line which causes the debate. It was changed to being able to be out not playing a shot mainly as a result of the Cowdrey/May stand in the late 50's when they spent all day kicking away Ramadin and Valentine.

 

[Richard]

So safe to say, some point shortly after 1957.

Really, apart from McGrath vs Lindwall, I don't think it'll affect too many bowler-vs-bowler comparisons.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bowling just outside off is negative bowling?

"Negative" sounds pejorative, unduly so, so maybe "defensive" is better. McGrath (the archetype of that style of bowling) is probably the finest defensive bowler I've seen. Even that sounds like a back-handed compliment, but it isn't meant to be. He was/is the ultimate percentages bowler: if you can do the same thing again and again with tiny variations you should get results as a bowler.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

"Negative" sounds pejorative, unduly so, so maybe "defensive" is better. McGrath (the archetype of that style of bowling) is probably the finest defensive bowler I've seen. Even that sounds like a back-handed compliment, but it isn't meant to be. He was/is the ultimate percentages bowler: if you can do the same thing again and again with tiny variations you should get results as a bowler.

Precisely, and under the old LBW law he would have been potentially less effective because batsman would have been forced to play at fewer deliveries.

 

[nightprowler10]

"Negative" sounds pejorative, unduly so, so maybe "defensive" is better. McGrath (the archetype of that style of bowling) is probably the finest defensive bowler I've seen. Even that sounds like a back-handed compliment, but it isn't meant to be. He was/is the ultimate percentages bowler: if you can do the same thing again and again with tiny variations you should get results as a bowler.

Precisely, and under the old LBW law he would have been potentially less effective because batsman would have been forced to play at fewer deliveries.

I see what you meant now.

 

[nexxus]

Why are we even debating rules that make the batsman play at the ball more? They've got a big expensive wooden stick, and more body armour than many SWAT teams, they should have to use it more if anything.

I don't think these days, with wickets & bats as they are, there's any justification for giving the batters any more advantages. If anything the umpire should be even stricter on giving them out when not playing a shot outside off.

 

[Prince EWS]

It would reward bowlers for persisting with a negative line.

It wouldn't really be negative if they had a good chance of getting a wicket with it though, would it? The reason it's negative is because of the law.

I'm still against it because of this reason:

Left-arm fingerspinners and even average right-arm stock-standard wristspinners would simply become infinitely more effective than any other bowler

But it would cease to become negative as such if it was a legitimate wicket-taking line of attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

To make the bowler bowl wicket to wicket to get a LBW. The pads are the batsman's second line of defence (which is why they're taught to play defensive shots with bat and pad close together) and when defending the wicket they shouldn't have to worry about anything that's outside the line. The current rule was only brought in because batsman abused the old rule by constantly kicking away the spinners. The rule as it stands now makes the batsman play at deliveries he shouldn't have to which gives the seamers an advantage they didn't used to have. A lot of the bowlers before this rule came in would have taken a truck load more wickets had they bowled under it.

It all sounds great in theory and I actually agree to some extent, but the last thing we need is something that skews the game more in the batsman's favour.

 

[silentstriker]

It wouldn't really be negative if they had a good chance of getting a wicket with it though, would it? The reason it's negative is because of the law.

It's negative because its very hard to score.

 

[roseboy64]

Why are we even debating rules that make the batsman play at the ball more? They've got a big expensive wooden stick, and more body armour than many SWAT teams, they should have to use it more if anything.

I don't think these days, with wickets & bats as they are, there's any justification for giving the batters any more advantages. If anything the umpire should be even stricter on giving them out when not playing a shot outside off.

LBW on legside would work in favour of bowlers actually. Batsmen are limited in leg side shots so a bowler would have more chance of getting a wicket since it'd be harder for the batsmen to play every ball unless there's some radical change in stance. Even the best legside players aren't awesome at playing those shots. There's the rough to contend with too.


TBH, I wondered why there was no legisde LBW the first time I heard it but with some explanation I don't see why it should be changed. Just putting it out there for discussion.

 

[Manee]

It's negative because its very hard to score.

Indeed. It is defensive because you cannot take a wicket with it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, there should definitely not be a change in the laws to allow a ball that pitches outside leg to be given out.

 

[Jakester1288]

Seen it on another forum and saw this post here:


What do you think? Should balls that pitch outside leg be given out, if they're gonna hit the wicket? Would be a major change in how the game is played.

Put simply, yes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Put simply, yes.

So we get back to seeing scores of 60 all out?

 

[SJS]

Seen it on another forum and saw this post here:


What do you think? Should balls that pitch outside leg be given out, if they're gonna hit the wicket? Would be a major change in how the game is played.

Originally Posted by SJS

As it stands today, this is unfair to the bowlers, extremely so, but not illegal because there is nothing in the laws to prevent him. I think the laws need to be modified to to allow LBW's to balls pitching on either si9de of the stumps and in the limited overs game, not to declare the legside wide for close deliveries (as is done presently) to balls pitched on either of the two leg sides (except genuinely wide balls of course).​

AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION :-

I must clarify that my original post which is quoted in the thread starter was purely in response to the discussion on the legality os switch hitting. So what I meant was that if a player resorts to switch hitting, he should be a candidate for an LBW decision if he misses and in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have hit the stumps.

This wasn't to suggest that leg side pitching deliveries should be able to claim LBW decisions in the normal course of play.

 

[nexxus]

LBW on legside would work in favour of bowlers actually. Batsmen are limited in leg side shots so a bowler would have more chance of getting a wicket since it'd be harder for the batsmen to play every ball unless there's some radical change in stance. Even the best legside players aren't awesome at playing those shots. There's the rough to contend with too.


TBH, I wondered why there was no legisde LBW the first time I heard it but with some explanation I don't see why it should be changed. Just putting it out there for discussion.

I was talking about the offside portion of the law & possibly changing it to LBW only for pitching the ball on the stumps.

 

[roseboy64]

Originally Posted by SJS

As it stands today, this is unfair to the bowlers, extremely so, but not illegal because there is nothing in the laws to prevent him. I think the laws need to be modified to to allow LBW's to balls pitching on either si9de of the stumps and in the limited overs game, not to declare the legside wide for close deliveries (as is done presently) to balls pitched on either of the two leg sides (except genuinely wide balls of course).​

AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION :-

I must clarify that my original post which is quoted in the thread starter was purely in response to the discussion on the legality os switch hitting. So what I meant was that if a player resorts to switch hitting, he should be a candidate for an LBW decision if he misses and in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have hit the stumps.

This wasn't to suggest that leg side pitching deliveries should be able to claim LBW decisions in the normal course of play.

Yeah got that. Just where I got the idea from.

I was talking about the offside portion of the law & possibly changing it to LBW only for pitching the ball on the stumps.

Oh....

 

[SJS]

Yeah got that. Just where I got the idea from.

I know but I wanted to clarify that but for a batsman switching hands, I am completely against changing the existing LBW rule that currently prevents a bowler claiming a wicket if the ball pitches outside leg.