LBW Legside Rule

[roseboy64]

Seen it on another forum and saw this post here:

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).

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.

[SirBloody Idiot]

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.

[nightprowler10]

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.

[Jamee999]

Shane Warne to return and take 20 wickets a match, imo.

[silentstriker]

It would reward bowlers for persisting with a negative line.

[cowboysfan]

Only if the batsmen switch hits-then both stumps shoud be considered off-side.

[Richard]

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.

[Jungle Jumbo]

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.

[slowfinger]

I' not really bothered about that shot tbh, but its ok I guess.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by slowfinger

I' not really bothered about that shot tbh, but its ok I guess.

Excellent.

[Jono]

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.

[Isura]

Originally Posted by Jono

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.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by Isura

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.

[Jono]

Uhh, why?

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by Jono

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.