LBW law

[josephina]

Is anyone else unhappy about the LBW law?

If it pitches outside leg, it can't be out. Why? I think the theory is that this is negative bowling. If Warne pitches outside leg and hits the top of off, how is that negative? If anything, you are encouraging negative pad play by having that rule.

Where it pitches is not relevant to whether the bowling is negative. Where it is when it reaches the batter is much more relevant. A left arm around could pitch the ball in line with the stumps and the ball goes well down legside. That is negative bowling.

The rules of cricket should be, a batter can be out LBW, even if the ball pitches outside leg. If that is not acceptable, then it should be if it pitches outside leg, a batter can't be out LBW if they are playing a shot. At least that will encourage batters to try to hit the ball.

I'm not crazy about the rest of the LBW law either. I appreciate they are trying to encourage batters to play a stroke, but I would prefer it is not relevant whether someone was struck in line with the stumps. I really don't understand the rationale about that.

On a side note about negative bowling, the limited over rules should apply to all cricket. It is a wide if it goes down legside or over the shoulder of a batter in their normal stance. Spectators want action, not wasted deliveries.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I am asking this not to diss you or shame you or anything; but have you ever played Club cricket at any level?

 

[shortpitched713]

Cool story.

 

[howitzer]

Since DRS became a regular thing LBW became op and you want to make it more op. Ridiculous thread.

 

[shortpitched713]

To be fair lbw should be op, because batsmen could just bring some steel toed shoes and start playing soccer to any slow bowling.

But I think that deliveries starting from behind the body and running across are inherently op as well. So the current lbw law, with both drs and no lbw pitching outside leg is the right balance, imo.

 

[josephina]

But I think that deliveries starting from behind the body and running across are inherently op as well. So the current lbw law, with both drs and no lbw pitching outside leg is the right balance, imo.

What does op mean?

Instead of just saying you like the current rule, please explain the rationale. Why does it matter where it pitches? Why does it matter if you were struck in line? If you could explain the rationale then maybe I would understand it and agree with you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you allowed lbw to balls pitching outside leg you would basically ruin cricket. Just follow the logic

 

[Spark]

LBW is an inferior dismissal and now that we've rectified the issue caused by umpires not giving plumb LBWs not out on the front foot for spin, the next movement in the law should be towards less LBWs, not more.

 

[josephina]

If you allowed lbw to balls pitching outside leg you would basically ruin cricket. Just follow the logic

Ruin cricket how? Why doesn't anyone explain their logic? If you explain it I will probably agree with you but nobody explains anything.

 

[josephina]

movement in the law should be towards less LBWs, not more

Why? Do you want people using their pads to block the ball instead of their bat? What is the logic?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ruin cricket how? Why doesn't anyone explain their logic? If you explain it I will probably agree with you but nobody explains anything.

Just think about it. It should be common sense. What would bowlers do if they could get lbws pitching outside leg? And what fields would they set?

Maybe "ruin cricket" is an exaggeration but it would make it a lot worse. A whole lot of leg side bowling. Spinners especially would attack the outside leg line almost exclusively

 

[Line and Length]

The current law lessens the impact of negative bowling. If LBWs were given to deliveries pitched outside leg then right arm bowlers would bowl around the wicket aiming at the batsman's pads. Fields would be placed accordingly leading to unattractive cricket.
Batsmen aren't always "using their pads to block the ball" when struck outside the line of leg. They are more likely struck in their normal stance.

 

[Spark]

Why? Do you want people using their pads to block the ball instead of their bat? What is the logic?

I think it should be incumbent on people who want to radically change the game in ways are universally agreed as horrible to explain themselves and demonstrate that they understand the history of the law and horrible unwatchable cricket that their supposed "improvements" promote before asking anyone else to explain anything. Balls pitching a foot outside leg stump and hitting the pad would be given out and people like you would say "oh he should just have hit it" despite that not being possible without taking extreme risks with fielders on the legside that anyone who has used a cricket bat themselves intuitively understands.

Your proposed changes reduce the importance of the most interesting style of cricket, which is the contest on and outside off stump, and substitute it for the most boring one, which is cricket on and around leg stump where the batsman can only play one shot and the fielding side only needs to protect one area of the ground. Even with the current LBW law this kind of cricket is often boring as ****, and all for a mode of dismissal which is inferior anyway because it relies on the umpire speculating on what happened.

This has all happened already and needed to be fixed. One of the reasons we have fielding restrictions on the legside is to reduce the frequency of dull as dishwasher tactics targeting leg stump, as happened in the 1950s.

Just think about it. It should be common sense. What would bowlers do if they could get lbws pitching outside leg? And what fields would they set?

Maybe "ruin cricket" is an exaggeration but it would make it a lot worse. A whole lot of leg side bowling. Spinners especially would attack the outside leg line almost exclusively

I don't think it would be an exaggeration at all tbh.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Is anyone else unhappy about the LBW law?

If it pitches outside leg, it can't be out. Why? I think the theory is that this is negative bowling. If Warne pitches outside leg and hits the top of off, how is that negative? If anything, you are encouraging negative pad play by having that rule.

Where it pitches is not relevant to whether the bowling is negative. Where it is when it reaches the batter is much more relevant. A left arm around could pitch the ball in line with the stumps and the ball goes well down legside. That is negative bowling.

The rules of cricket should be, a batter can be out LBW, even if the ball pitches outside leg. If that is not acceptable, then it should be if it pitches outside leg, a batter can't be out LBW if they are playing a shot. At least that will encourage batters to try to hit the ball.

I'm not crazy about the rest of the LBW law either. I appreciate they are trying to encourage batters to play a stroke, but I would prefer it is not relevant whether someone was struck in line with the stumps. I really don't understand the rationale about that.

On a side note about negative bowling, the limited over rules should apply to all cricket. It is a wide if it goes down legside or over the shoulder of a batter in their normal stance. Spectators want action, not wasted deliveries.

Leg side deliveries are harder to score off, if you change the law to allow balls pitching outside leg to be out, then bowlers will simply go round the wicket and aim for the pads with a packed legside field and it becomes a very boring game.
Bowlers can also argue that legside wides should be as lenient as offside wides due to the fact that a outside leg delivery is now a legitimate wicket taking option with your law change.
Also kids are taught defensive and offensive technique with the knowledge that balls pitched outside leg cannot be out ..
To undo all of that would be a big mess and isn't worth the change you think it will bring.

 

[josephina]

Just think about it. It should be common sense. What would bowlers do if they could get lbws pitching outside leg? And what fields would they set?

Maybe "ruin cricket" is an exaggeration but it would make it a lot worse. A whole lot of leg side bowling. Spinners especially would attack the outside leg line almost exclusively

You are assuming if it pitches outside leg, you can only hit it to the leg side. You are confusing where it pitches with where it passes the batter. A bowler could be left arm around to a batter, pitch in line with the stumps and it goes down leg. The only place to hit that is legside. That should be a wide. Compare that to Warne bowls right arm around to a right hander, pitches outside leg and it hits the top of off. That is not negative bowling. If you were the batter facing that, you aren't restricted to hitting to the legside. You can open your stance like Chanderpaul or take guard outside leg. You can easily open up the offside.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You are assuming if it pitches outside leg, you can only hit it to the leg side. You are confusing where it pitches with where it passes the batter. A bowler could be left arm around to a batter, pitch in line with the stumps and it goes down leg. The only place to hit that is legside. That should be a wide. Compare that to Warne bowls right arm around to a right hander, pitches outside leg and it hits the top of off. That is not negative bowling. If you were the batter facing that, you aren't restricted to hitting to the legside. You can open your stance like Chanderpaul or take guard outside leg. You can easily open up the offside.

I think you're underestimating a bit too much how bloody difficult it is to play leg spinner like Warne when he pitches outside the leg.....

 

[howitzer]

What does op mean?

Instead of just saying you like the current rule, please explain the rationale. Why does it matter where it pitches? Why does it matter if you were struck in line? If you could explain the rationale then maybe I would understand it and agree with you.

OP means overpowered. As for the other questions, other posters, particularly Spark have pretty much covered it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lmao be a right hander facing a right arm quick around the wicket angling the ball into your pads and try hitting it through the off side

And Warne would have 1500 wickets @ 10 if he could get lbws from balls pitched outside leg. He used that tactic against right handers with decent success even without lbw being an option

 

[Spark]

Lmao be a right hander facing a right arm quick around the wicket angling the ball into your pads and try hitting it through the off side

And Warne would have 1500 wickets @ 10 if he could get lbws from balls pitched outside leg. He used that tactic against right handers with decent success even without lbw being an option

just hit it through cover bro it's easy bro

 

[Spark]

So basically this new improved version of cricket involves bowlers bowling around the wicket from way wide of the crease bowling length at the top leg stump, with six fielders square on the legside which ensures that it's more or less impossible to score normally without doing something incredibly stupid like exposing your stumps, and the best scoring option is to literally just accumulate wides down leg.