Freakish Talents

[91Jmay]

The real rule changes that needs to happen is removing LBW being not out if it hits outside of the line of off stump whilst playing a shot or pitching outside of leg. **** that, if it is hitting the pads on the way to the stumps it is LBW.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmm, not convinced that would be a good thing for cricket - too much negative bowling at the pads from around the wicket.

 

[91Jmay]

Hmm, not convinced that would be a good thing for cricket - too much negative bowling at the pads from around the wicket.

Fair call. I maintain the off stump one is silly though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The real rule changes that needs to happen is removing LBW being not out if it hits outside of the line of off stump whilst playing a shot or pitching outside of leg. **** that, if it is hitting the pads on the way to the stumps it is LBW.

No. That rule is there for very good reason.

Not just what vic said, it's not as easy in general to hit a ball angling from the leg side. LBWs would become way too easy to get, batsman's stances might even have to completely change to combat it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Originally regarding the reverse sweep, I was of the belief that there should be no change to wides etc. as long as the batsman didn't switch hands over - if he switched hands to play a left handed shot, then he should forfeit the benefit of leg side wide.

But that's too hard for the umpire to be checking, while trying to watch the ball, the bowler's foot, etc.

Not really sure where I stand on it now.

 

[91Jmay]

No. That rule is there for very good reason.

Not just what vic said, it's not as easy in general to hit a ball angling from the leg side. LBWs would become way too easy to get, batsman's stances might even have to completely change to combat it.

Yeah, I think on reflection that one was wrong call. Still think outside off stump is archaic though. Assume it comes from the idea that to much doubt for umpire? But if we trust DRS then surely that is not relevant?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, I think on reflection that one was wrong call. Still think outside off stump is archaic though. Assume it comes from the idea that to much doubt for umpire? But if we trust DRS then surely that is not relevant?

Yes, I can't see anything wrong with your logic regarding the impact outside off rule. I don't really get why it's there either, but it would be weird to change it I guess.

Originally regarding the reverse sweep, I was of the belief that there should be no change to wides etc. as long as the batsman didn't switch hands over - if he switched hands to play a left handed shot, then he should forfeit the benefit of leg side wide.

But that's too hard for the umpire to be checking, while trying to watch the ball, the bowler's foot, etc.

Not really sure where I stand on it now.

A lot of umpires don't seem to call the wides anyway. As in they already seem to have decided that if a batsman does this they forfeit the right to a leg-side wide, whether it's in the official rules or not.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah leggies and left arm spinners would have so much fun if it was allowed in tests. Short leg, fine leg, square leg, man out for the sweep, midwicket, mid on, mid off, covers, point/third man. Let the fella reverse sweep if he can or go inside out if he's Sehwag.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah, I think on reflection that one was wrong call. Still think outside off stump is archaic though. Assume it comes from the idea that to much doubt for umpire? But if we trust DRS then surely that is not relevant?

Im not sure of the origins of the struck-outside-off law either. I feel it may be to dissuade bowlers from going full Ntini and angling the ball in from wide angles hunting from the LBW, as well as to encourage batsmen to play aggressive strokes to balls outside off coming in rather than just defending them out of fear of LBW...but I'm not really sure.

Something worth googling I guess.

As for Freakish Cricket Talents:

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm sure SJS (or maybe someone else) wrote an article ages back running through the history of the LBW rule, and explaining the reasons for the changes pre-WWII.

 

[91Jmay]

Im not sure of the origins of the struck-outside-off law either. I feel it may be to dissuade bowlers from going full Ntini and angling the ball in from wide angles hunting from the LBW, as well as to encourage batsmen to play aggressive strokes to balls outside off coming in rather than just defending them out of fear of LBW...but I'm not really sure.

Something worth googling I guess.

As for Freakish Cricket Talents:

That Ntini style is full off risk though, how many times did he get tickled to fine leg? He was excellent bowler though for sure.

The aggressive cricket is not a bad point, although being honest in this era I don't see that being an issue at all. Batsmen play no foot drives when the ball is hooping around as it is, so can't see that rule having much of an impact.

I want to be clear, i don't think it is a blight on cricket or anything the current rule. Just think it makes little to no sense.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That Ntini style is full off risk though, how many times did he get tickled to fine leg? He was excellent bowler though for sure.

The aggressive cricket is not a bad point, although being honest in this era I don't see that being an issue at all. Batsmen play no foot drives when the ball is hooping around as it is, so can't see that rule having much of an impact.

I want to be clear, i don't think it is a blight on cricket or anything the current rule. Just think it makes little to no sense.

Pre-DRS I would have been more up for this.

 

[the big bambino]

The idea you can get someone out just bcos you hit a leg is a pretty silly and idiosyncratic one. Pretty sure the game didn't originally intend it as a means of dismissal but evolved as a means to counter cynical, defensive batting. As it was instituted in an era before modern technology, the rule makers had to design a set of guidelines to assist the umpire make a decision: Eventually a delivery pitching from wicket to wicket. From that it basically stayed the same until improved batting conditions after the first war made run getting easier. The comparison with modern times would have been indistinguishable but quite distinct when opposed to the preceding eras. Nothing was done until bodyline became a catalyst for reform and that became the rule where you are out if you were hit in line to a ball initially pitched outside off.

Throughout its history lbw has been an important reform but relatively minor method of dismissal. Its presence is meant to keep the balance between bowling and batting and encourage batsmen to play at the ball. Now technology is so good you don't really need the guidelines that assisted the umpires of old to make their decisions. You can effectively determine if a ball will hit the stumps especially on review. So some people in the game keep agitating for slimmer margins of error in deciding lbws. You might then see some very short innings with almost whole teams out lbw. I think this gives bowling sides too much of an advantage in getting a wicket from a method that was never intended to be a main form of dismissal. So I would be in favour of keeping the guidelines, though technology makes them redundant, to ensure lbws don't proliferate as a form of dismissal.

 

[Daemon]

bla bla bla if it ain't broke don't fix it

 

[mr_mister]

DRS certainly made 'getting hit on the pad while far outside your crease' no longer an effective form of combating lbw, since we no longer need to make guesses with the technology at our disposal. Victory for the bowler

 

[weldone]

Rohit Sharma

/thread

 

[smash84]

Rohit Sharma

/thread

He's just freaky

 

[Burgey]

The real rule changes that needs to happen is removing LBW being not out if it hits outside of the line of off stump whilst playing a shot or pitching outside of leg. **** that, if it is hitting the pads on the way to the stumps it is LBW.

Think allowing players to get out if it pitches outside leg would make for some seriously dull cricket tbh

 

[TheJediBrah]

DRS certainly made 'getting hit on the pad while far outside your crease' no longer an effective form of combating lbw, since we no longer need to make guesses with the technology at our disposal. Victory for the bowler

Don't they still have the 2.5 metre rule or something? ie if the impact is too far down the pitch it's automatically not out