LBW- Do you think the specifics are fair?

[Sir Alex]

I don't have particular issues with outside leg stump rule, but I don't understand the hitting outside off stump attempting shot rule. If anything that rule is a spinner killer. We've seen how batsmen are taking strike on off stump and moving outside line to counter off spin. In effect it is asking the spinner to bowl darts at the leg stump in which case he's no longer an off spinner. Particularly on assisting wickets.

 

[fredfertang]

The lbw law is the one mode of dismissal that can be tinkered with in isolation so it has always been controversial because changing it can alter the balance between bat and ball

Until 1935 the ball had to
a. pitch in line
b. strike the batsman in line
c. be going on to hit the stumps

So if the ball pitched outside the off stump the batsman was safe in the knowledge that if he missed the ball with his bat he had a second line of defence the use of which couldn't possibly result in him losing his wicket.

Up until then even in England all successful spinners were left arm orthodox or leggies as turning the ball into the batsman was generally ineffective - inswingers too weren't strike bowlers and those there were tended to bowl a version of leg theory as a tactic (not like the way Larwood did it) that was a negative one

As wickets continued to improve after the Great War the balance moved too far in favour of the bat and the scoring of Ponsford, and then Bradman, were the result as, eventually, was fast leg theory (Bodyline). In 1935 an experimental law came in which was ratified two years later and is still with us that modified a. to allow a batsman to be lbw to a delivery that pitched outside off stump

Off spinners and inswingers then had a role and by the 50's in England it was a major role - so successful were the offies with their leg traps that there eventually had to be legislation to restrict the number of short legs

Through the 60's the game became dull and defensive again and the ability of batsmen to still be able to put their leg outside off stump and kick the ball away came under fire and since 1970, to stop that, we have had the further refinement that b. doesn't apply if the umpire takes the view no shot is being played - sometimes a difficult call for umps where the batsman tucks his bat in behind his pad - sometimes, when he shoulders arms, a la Gatting, very easy.

Does the balance need to shift to the bowler by removing a. or b. altogether? or to the batsman by restricting a. or b.? or a combination? - or can other things be done to shift the balance?
　
　

 

[Furball]

If a batsman has his bat tucked in behind his pad IMO he's not playing a shot.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If a batsman has his bat tucked in behind his pad IMO he's not playing a shot.

Yep, exactly so. But because of the law as it stands some batsmen go through the pantomime of doing just that. Happily some umps (the much maligned Hair being in the vanguard, so credit where it's due) now are more prepared to fire out batters who attempt this fiction.

If the law was changed to allow any ball that strikes a batsman outside the line on the off side to be given, regardless of a shot being offered or not, than umpires wouldn't have to psychoanalyse the batsman's intetion and well as mentally plotting the ball's trajectory.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bowlers should be bowling wicket to wicket to get an LBW. The off stump rule change was made after Cowdrey and May spent all day kicking away Ramadhin and Valentine.
It's left batsman far more vulnerable outside the offstump than their predecessors as they're having to play at deliveries that they should be able to leave alone.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bowlers should be bowling wicket to wicket to get an LBW. The off stump rule change was made after Cowdrey and May spent all day kicking away Ramadhin and Valentine.
It's left batsman far more vulnerable outside the offstump than their predecessors as they're having to play at deliveries that they should be able to leave alone.

Would beg to differ then; if a ball is going on to hit the stumps I think batsmen should be having to play it with their bat.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It allows a bowler like McGrath for instance to nag away just outside off stump with the batsman not knowing what the ball is going to do and having to play at deliveries that aren't hitting. If the ball has to pitch on the stumps to get an LBW there's no doubt in the batsman mind about what he has to play and what he doesn't..

 

[Furball]

It allows a bowler like McGrath for instance to nag away just outside off stump with the batsman not knowing what the ball is going to do and having to play at deliveries that aren't hitting. If the ball has to pitch on the stumps to get an LBW there's no doubt in the batsman mind about what he has to play and what he doesn't..

AWTA, McGrath should have just spent his career bowling half volleys.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I call sarchasm.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

AWTA, McGrath should have just spent his career bowling half volleys.

So you think he was incapable of bowling wicket to wicket without it being a half-volley? Doesn't surprise me.

 

[Spark]

It allows a bowler like McGrath for instance to nag away just outside off stump with the batsman not knowing what the ball is going to do and having to play at deliveries that aren't hitting. If the ball has to pitch on the stumps to get an LBW there's no doubt in the batsman mind about what he has to play and what he doesn't..

Isn't that, er, kinda the point? That's what makes watching a really good accurate fast bowler fascinating, to seem them creating that indecision on the batsman's mind. Rather that then "Meh, I'll just take guard on/outside off stump and just play everything off my pads". I'd not watch that game.

 

[fredfertang]

It depends if the balance is right - with the likes of McGrath if the state of the pitch and/or the condition of the ball are such as to make the ball dart all over the place then batting can become a lottery - which is why pitch preparation and seam sizes and other ball manufacturing issues are important - without regulating those the lbw law and the size of the wicket are the only ways to alter the balance and history shows the authorities are loathe to tinker with the laws of the game

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Isn't that, er, kinda the point? That's what makes watching a really good accurate fast bowler fascinating, to seem them creating that indecision on the batsman's mind. Rather that then "Meh, I'll just take guard on/outside off stump and just play everything off my pads". I'd not watch that game.

Er, no, er, that er isn't kinda the point. If a bowler is just bowling in a general area rather than at the stumps he gets wickets with nothing deliveries.