Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: LBW Legside Rule

  1. #1
    Cricket Web Content Updater roseboy64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    18,574

    LBW Legside Rule

    Seen it on another forum and saw this post here:
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    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).
    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.
    Sir Alexander Chapman Ferguson = Greatest Ever Manager
    "One from ten leaves zero." - Eric Williams, former T&T PM
    Member of Cricket Web Green
    Member of Northside Power

    R.I.P Fardin Qayyumi

  2. #2
    Cricketer Of The Year SirBloody Idiot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Moving the hole in the o-zone layer
    Posts
    8,547
    I've never quite grasped the whole concept of pitching outside leg-stump being given not out; but if it is purely in response to Pietersen essentially becoming a left-hander, then surely there are bigger fish to fry. It simply doesn't happen enough in cricket to warrant a change in the LBW laws and I'd prefer LBW laws to be consistent in all forms of cricket.

    As for wides, the current rules governing them in one day cricket are ridiculously harsh and should be changed regardless.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator nightprowler10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Madhouse on Madison
    Posts
    14,234
    Would make life hell for RH batsmen facing a good leg spinner. Let's do it.

    In all seriousness, I think it would skew the game towards the bowlers, which won't play well into the interests of people trying to make money off cricket, so I obviously don't see it ever happening, and am not totally convinced if it needs to happen. We don't really need to change the LBW laws, but just make more seam friendly pitches.
    RIP Craigos

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member Jamee999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    15,094
    Shane Warne to return and take 20 wickets a match, imo.
    Or something.

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990 - 15/4/2006


  5. #5
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    It would reward bowlers for persisting with a negative line.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  6. #6
    U19 Debutant cowboysfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    irving,texas
    Posts
    381
    Only if the batsmen switch hits-then both stumps shoud be considered off-side.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Any time cricket removes the no-lbw-to-balls-pitching-outside-leg rule it'll almost certainly become a complete farce. Left-arm fingerspinners and even average right-arm stock-standard wristspinners would simply become infinitely more effective than any other bowler, because they could push the ball into the pads and make scoring difficult (playing accross the spin) but could still get lbws.

    I'm quite happy with the lbw law as it currently is. If TV replays with technology were to be brought in to make almost every lbw decision correct, then the law might in fact need to be modified in favour of batsmen, as the current law being implemented correctly would mean many more lbws than we see currently - and that in itself is higher than it was 10 years ago.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  8. #8
    International Vice-Captain Jungle Jumbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,898
    It's very hard to hit anything on a length, just outside leg stump delivered by the left arm bowler to the right hand bat, especially at pace. A batsman would have no chance of lasting any amount of time if the ball could simply be speared towards his legs rather than at his bat.

  9. #9
    State Captain slowfinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Worcs.
    Posts
    1,972
    I' not really bothered about that shot tbh, but its ok I guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba
    If Shoiab starts throwing his jockstrap around, they're all going to catch something

    Accidental Founder of the Fawad Alam Appreciation Society!

    Slowfinger - An active member of CricketWeb for 7 years and counting!

  10. #10
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,761
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfinger View Post
    I' not really bothered about that shot tbh, but its ok I guess.

    Excellent.

  11. #11
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,046
    Pitch outside leg, no LBW has to stay IMO. You can't have left armers coming over the wicket to right handers and just getting ridiculous angle aiming at the legs. Plus it'd remove/reduce the awesomeness of left arm in-swing to the right handers which has to pitch in line.

    I can see why some people would want the "hit outside line of off stump playing a shot" removed however. I'm not sure about that though.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  12. #12
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Pitch outside leg, no LBW has to stay IMO. You can't have left armers coming over the wicket to right handers and just getting ridiculous angle aiming at the legs. Plus it'd remove/reduce the awesomeness of left arm in-swing to the right handers which has to pitch in line.

    I can see why some people would want the "hit outside line of off stump playing a shot" removed however. I'm not sure about that though.
    Ya, that certainly has more of a case for removal than the legside rule. Just getting outside the line of off stump shouldn't be rewarded if the batsmen has poor technique or doesn't attempt a genuine shot.

  13. #13
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Isura View Post
    Ya, that certainly has more of a case for removal than the legside rule. Just getting outside the line of off stump shouldn't be rewarded if the batsmen has poor technique or doesn't attempt a genuine shot.
    That has no merit at all, if anything they should revert to the rule which makes the bowler pitch in line to get a LBW.

  14. #14
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,046
    Uhh, why?

  15. #15
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Uhh, why?
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Rule 240
    By Top_Cat in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 02:59 PM
  2. ODI Rule Changes
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 08:49 AM
  3. ODI rule changes
    By shortpitched713 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 25-02-2007, 11:18 PM
  4. Rule #1
    By steds in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 31-08-2004, 05:59 PM

Posting Permissions

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