Cricinfo: Breaking the laws

[nexxus]

Cricinfo XI: Laws that need changing | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Some good points in here, some not so good. I found myself agreeing strongly with the first 3.

- Leg byes are essentially a consolation prize for the batsmen not being good enough to hit the ball.
- I've yet to read a really good supporting argument for not giving a batsman out LBW if the ball hit outside off. The reason for the leg side rule is obvious, but the case for the offside limitation is flakey at best.
- Backing up beyond the crease is unfair & borderline cheating. I don't think it's unsporting in the slightest to run the guy out, the traditional warning (before the law change) was actually a courtesy.
- Light, well that's being changed for the slight better. Again, changing conditions is part of the game, a little murky light is no good reason to come off.
-

 

[andyc]

The only one that I wouldn't mind being changed would be the lbw law. The others I'd have one or two reservations about though.

Edit: Oh, and the ODI bouncer rule

 

[TumTum]

The lbw rule would give a disadvantage to front foot players. Batsmen will have to change their techniques so they make sure that the ball never hits their pads.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I'd be happy for the LBW law to be changed. The backing-up idea has some merit has well.

In theory, getting rid of leg-byes would make sense, but it would be another issue for the umpire to have to keep an eye out for. There are often cases of leg-byes/runs being given when the replay showed the opposite to be true, but no-one's really fussed because it's still the same amount of runs.

 

[Somerset]

The suggestions are a bit of a mixture for me; some I definitely agree with (particularly the bad light, bouncers, backing up and not giving a batsman out when hes made his ground and the bat has bounced up). Others I hope would not be implemented (overthrows and legbyes are part of the game; it could be considered a "skill" to hit the stumps but if you're taking aim at the stumps and a batsman has made his ground, and the ball richochets for additional runs, thats a combination of bad luck and, at times, bad cricket. Legitimising ball tampering is a recipe for disaster.) The rest I'm indifferent about, so long as in the long run theres consistency (runners, etc).

 

[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.

My ideas on the subject.

 

[nexxus]

The lbw rule would give a disadvantage to front foot players. Batsmen will have to change their techniques so they make sure that the ball never hits their pads.

God forbid the precious batsmen having to change their sacred technique. I know many people consider the fine art of 'padding it away' to be an integral part of the game, but surely implementing a rule to specifically deprive the bowler of a wicket because the plonker holding the railway sleeper on the other end wasn't good enough to hit the ball, but wasn't quite inept enough to let it get past his giant foam leg warmers is unfair & unsporting play.

Ah, quite enough sarcasm for one post I reckon.

 

[Jayzamann]

For a second there I thought it was the law against deliveries pitched outside leg stump. I agree with why they were outlawed from being ruled LBW. I agree with a plumb LBW decision being given, even when the ball has pitched outside off stump.

Agree with letting the fielder touch the boundary rope as well. But that could get contentious if a fielder barrels into the rope and displaces it, and the ball rolls past where the rope was. Maybe have paint under the rope? Or sometimes when it is really warm, the grass changes to a different shade of green under the advertising triangles. In any case, if a ball is stopped a metre or two in from the ropes, but the fielder just happens to be a tall bowler or is carrying momentum in a slide, that doesn't a boundary make. I would support a six being given if a fielder catches it while touching the ropes.

Excellent food for thought, this article.

 

[shrik]

i think double play should be allowed...
2 batsmen getting out on a same ball can be hillarious sometimes and can be painful too.....

 

[Furball]

Agree with the runner issue. Just get rid of them altogether. Part of batting is being able to run between the wickets (they're called "runs" for a reason), if you cramp up afaic you have 2 choices: retire out, or man up and carry on batting. It's international sport ffs, if you're not fit enough to last 50 overs in the field then bat for 50 overs without cramping up, you shouldn't be there.

 

[Sir Alex]

Agree with the runner issue. Just get rid of them altogether. Part of batting is being able to run between the wickets (they're called "runs" for a reason), if you cramp up afaic you have 2 choices: retire out, or man up and carry on batting. It's international sport ffs, if you're not fit enough to last 50 overs in the field then bat for 50 overs without cramping up, you shouldn't be there.

Agreed.

Although tbf the number of instances involving runners have come down substantially in recent years as compared to 90s (when I started watching cricket). Without taking anything away from Saeed Anwar's efforts, it was really jarring to see him stepping out, using his feet like a dancer, and dispatching Kumble over long on at will, despite having a runner for more than hour, in his epic 194.

 

[fredfertang]

I’d be very wary about changing the lbw law. As matters stand when a batsman sees a half volley outside off stump on a seaming deck he can play his cover drive without fear of being lbw if it nips back in. If he doesn’t have that second line of defence he might choose to err on the side of caution and not play an attacking shot at all.

 

[Jono]

My biggest pet hate is the backing up rule.

At least in indoor cricket you can mankad! And I do it all the ****ing time. Not unsporting at all. Go and get ****ed if you're going to be half way down the pitch before I've bowled the ball.

 

[jeevan]

Why are leg byes different from byes?

The batting team (not the batsman) is taking advantage of a shortcoming in the fielding team and the fielding team has a shot at running the batsmen out when they attempt it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My biggest pet hate is the backing up rule.

At least in indoor cricket you can mankad! And I do it all the ****ing time. Not unsporting at all. Go and get ****ed if you're going to be half way down the pitch before I've bowled the ball.

Do agree, but Chappelli went on about it so bleedin' often in the world T20 he very nearly turned me round on the subject!

Why are leg byes different from byes?

The batting team (not the batsman) is taking advantage of a shortcoming in the fielding team and the fielding team has a shot at running the batsmen out when they attempt it.

Not really. If the ball balloons off the batsman's arse down to (say) deep fine leg the ball could be caught on the full and a run could still be taken. If he'd hit it down there he'd be out.

Byes punish keeping incompetence (and bowling profligacy), but LBs do rather read spawn. My only reservation in ditching them would be the increased scope for hold ups as the 3rd ump checks to see if a ball was hit.

 

[Lostman]

Wouldn't mind the legbye, lbw and sub rule, no opinion on the others.
Imagine Murali bowling with that lbw rule in place during his prime, right handed batsmen would have had no chance.

 

[Jono]

Do agree, but Chappelli went on about it so bleedin' often in the world T20 he very nearly turned me round on the subject!

Surely if the rule is gone he'll shut up about it and that's better, rather than Chappelli continuing on his tirade

 

[Sir Alex]

wouldn't mind the legbye, lbw and sub rule, no opinion on the others.
Imagine murali bowling with that lbw rule in place during his prime, right handed batsmen would have had no chance.

awta.

 

[Furball]

Do agree, but Chappelli went on about it so bleedin' often in the world T20 he very nearly turned me round on the subject!



Not really. If the ball balloons off the batsman's arse down to (say) deep fine leg the ball could be caught on the full and a run could still be taken. If he'd hit it down there he'd be out.

Byes punish keeping incompetence (and bowling profligacy), but LBs do rather read spawn. My only reservation in ditching them would be the increased scope for hold ups as the 3rd ump checks to see if a ball was hit.

The thing I hate about leg byes is this:

Scenario, team A need 10 off the final over to win. Bowler X runs in, bowls full and on middle stump, batsman Y has backed away to leg and manages to get the ball through the cover region, and the batsman run 2. 8 off 5 required.

Bowler runs in again, batsman looks to back away again and repeat the tactic, bowler follows him and the batsman swings, misses and the ball squirts off his boot to square leg, where there's no close in fielder and they run a single. Leg byes are signalled, target is now 7 off 4.

For the 2nd ball, the bowler has done his job brilliantly yet the outcome is that the batting side is 1 run closer to its target. It just doesn't seem right at all.

The only reservation I have is if an umpire signals that the ball hasn't come off the bat, the batsmen can then challenge it, which wastes time.

 

[Sir Alex]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the lawmakers want the bowler to "beat" the batsman and/or target the stumps and not the batsman's body?The batsman is taking undue risk and a bowler should back himself to land a peach yorker on middle and off and just knock them instead of following the batsman?