Worst Ideas

[Compton]

Yeah the whole absolutely anything down leg being a wide in LO cricket is silly. The limited overs game is already outrageously favourable to the batsman, give the bowler a break.

 

[cnerd123]

Nah I think it's fine. If you see a batsman shaping for the reverse sweep, fire it in wide of off and let them look foolish.

I do think the wide line should be dictated by where the batsman takes guard before the bowler runs in though. A batsman starting a foot outside leg, the shuffling across and letting the ball go past legstump and getting a wide run for that is just wrong.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Around the year 1998 there was a rule that if you attempted to hit a wide it wasn't a wide (because you had covered it with your bat. If you shouldered arms to it then the umpire might call it. Infuriating rule that lasted for 1-2 seasons.

The Laws state (unchanged in many years) that a delivery that would otherwise be called a wide shall not be a wide if a batsman moves to bring it within reach - whether or not a stroke is actually played. There can be variations for limited overs games.

I still think batsmen should not be given leg side wides if they are attempting switch hits or reverse sweeps. It is one way to help out the poor spinners, esp. in T20s. By all means call it a wide if it is out of reach but do not apply the stupid leg stump wide rule when the batsman has changed his grip and is basically being a left hand batsman (if he is a RHB)

In the regulations for (I suspect all) Club cricket in the UK this is now the case. Essentially is a batsman's back shoulder when the ball becomes live becomes his front shoulder when it is played you apply the 'wide' guidelines marked at he creases. That is a simplified summary. I don't know if it applies at a higher level.

I would also suggest that, in the case of a switch hit, a batsman should be liable to a possible LBW decision if the ball pitches outside the 'original' leg stump.

 

[honestbharani]

@*****:

No, see the point of the leg side wide and the LBW law on the pitching outside leg are based on the same principle of the blind zone on that side of the batsman and the inability to naturally free yourself up to reach the ball on the opposite side of your arms. So once the batter decides to switch hit (I agree reverse sweep is not that bad) he should, for all intents and purposes of the wide and LBW laws, be considered as a left (or right) hander. It would bring in some amount of risk to the shot coz at the moment batsmen play it knowing full well they cant be out LBW and even if they miss the ball on that side, it will be a wide. It is the exact opposite of an even contest between bowler and batsman.

 

[Furball]

Jord registering for cricketweb.net/forum

 

[Jord]

Jord registering for cricketweb.net/forum

 

[Daemon]

Jord

Ftfy

 

[Senile Sentry]

Because you can actually hit it with your bat out there. Or, at least, you're expected to.

I don't understand this, ultimately for the rule to work, the ball has to be in line with the stumps, and hit the stumps, now, please tell me how a ball pitching outside leg, but in line with the stump and hitting them is "hard for a batsman to put away with the bat"?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Because there's a blind spot there. Also you'd see everyone bowling around the wicket with a packed legside field.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Because there's a blind spot there. Also you'd see everyone bowling around the wicket with a packed legside field.

I have seen VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar play leg side more easily than off side, Tendulkar for example made a double hundred by playing almost all leg side strokes. So it is more like batsmen needing to skill up to deal with such deliveries and improve on their leg side play.

As to packed leg side, how's it any different from a packed off side? With the existing lbw rule, have everyone resorted to playing the 9-1 field and 1 foot outside off stump line? Similarly this as well.

The pitched outside leg stump is a rule that has outlived its utility. Doing away with it only bring down the balance in favor of bowlers and make it more exciting, and also a challenge for batsmen to improve their skill sets. Just like how players move across off stump to play on the leg side, I'd love to see batsmen moving away from leg stump and play inside out shots. In test cricket, it would mean no more useless "pad"athons.

 

[Spark]

I don't understand this, ultimately for the rule to work, the ball has to be in line with the stumps, and hit the stumps, now, please tell me how a ball pitching outside leg, but in line with the stump and hitting them is "hard for a batsman to put away with the bat"?

Try regularly hitting leg stump yorkers bowled from around the wicket and you'll soon find out.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Try regularly hitting leg stump yorkers bowled from around the wicket and you'll soon find out.

Try hitting any yorkers when bowled regularly. The counter arguments are getting flimsier and flimsier.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I have seen VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar play leg side more easily than off side, Tendulkar for example made a double hundred by playing almost all leg side strokes. So it is more like batsmen needing to skill up to deal with such deliveries and improve on their leg side play.

Oh word, didn't know they were using the outside leg stump LBW rule in those innings'.

 

[andruid]

Tossing out the Woolfe Report for the current 'reforms' will be the beginning of the end of the ICC

 

[nexxus]

The UAE's Sultan Zarwani deciding not to wear a helmet when coming out to face Allan Donald...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqhI-jUiHaQ

Fully agree that the hitting outside off limitation on LBW has had it's day, time to bin it. Everybody usually has a ton to say when defending the leg-side rule, hardly ever hear any justification for the off-side rule.

Allan Donald deciding to take a quick single sometime in 1999. Still hurts, then, today, forever.

 

[turnstyle]

The treatment of the Associates.

They were asked to qualify for every tournament no matter how well they did beforehand. They did.
They were asked to win qualifying tournaments in conditions that were nothing like the actual tournament. They did
They were asked to do it on minimal budget. They did.
They were asked to go professional on minimal budget. They did.
They were asked to perform against the full members. They did.
They were told if they wanted to play test cricket they needed to fulfil a criteria some full members would fail. They are.

Yet you're still not ****ing welcome. Now **** off.

We're about to lose a golden generation of Associate cricketers.

 

[Senile Sentry]

The treatment of the Associates.

They were asked to qualify for every tournament no matter how well they did beforehand. They did.
They were asked to win qualifying tournaments in conditions that were nothing like the actual tournament. They did
They were asked to do it on minimal budget. They did.
They were asked to go professional on minimal budget. They did.
They were asked to perform against the full members. They did.
They were told if they wanted to play test cricket they needed to fulfil a criteria some full members would fail. They are.

Yet you're still not ****ing welcome. Now **** off.

We're about to lose a golden generation of Associate cricketers.

Apart from the romanticism, do you really think there is an associate country that has shown consistently good performances to warrant a test spot?

And no, I don't think Zim or Ban deserves test spots either at the moment, and I fear WI is already heading that way.

 

[mr_mister]

Ireland seemed to perform well at every World Cup they were at

 

[OverratedSanity]

Apart from the romanticism, do you really think there is an associate country that has shown consistently good performances to warrant a test spot?

And no, I don't think Zim or Ban deserves test spots either at the moment, and I fear WI is already heading that way.

He didn't say they deserve test spots. Atleast that's not his entire point.

 

[marc71178]

Ireland seemed to perform well at every World Cup they were at

Depends what your definition of "quite well" is.

7 wins in 21 games isn't what I'd call "quite well".