Fair call. I maintain the off stump one is silly though.Hmm, not convinced that would be a good thing for cricket - too much negative bowling at the pads from around the wicket.
No. That rule is there for very good reason.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.
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?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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
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.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:
Pre-DRS I would have been more up for this.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.
He's just freakyRohit Sharma
/thread
Think allowing players to get out if it pitches outside leg would make for some seriously dull cricket tbhThe 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.
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 outDRS 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