Pitching Outside leg, hit outside of off.....

[Steak Pie]

Assume wrong then. Why should you be saved from LBW by a snick so fine that it needs a heat camera to see the mark on the bat? Why would it be a whooosh? The rules of any game can change. The LBW law changed loads of times.

Erm. Because you hit the ball with the bat, which is the whole point of the game? Is that it?

Also, how are you going to make the decision? Inside edge onto pad, it's impossible to judge just where the ball is going to go.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

Erm. Because you hit the ball with the bat, which is the whole point of the game? Is that it?

Your aim is to edge the ball so fine that you can only tell you have done so by the residual heat caused by the friction of the ball passing? Ok, but I'll stick to middling it. The point you are missing is that if your leg wasn't there you would still have been out bowled even if you think you hit it, and you weren't good enough to defend your wickets properly.

Your other point, yes, if there is a deflection so the ball no longer hits the stumps then you wouldn't be out, but the umpire already has to make a decision about what would and wouldn't hit, and we have the technology.

 

[Steak Pie]

Your aim is to edge the ball so fine that you can only tell you have done so by the residual heat caused by the friction of the ball passing? Ok, but I'll stick to middling it. The point you are missing is that if your leg wasn't there you would still have been out bowled even if you think you hit it, and you weren't good enough to defend your wickets properly.

Your other point, yes, if there is a deflection so the ball no longer hits the stumps then you wouldn't be out, but the umpire already has to make a decision about what would and wouldn't hit, and we have the technology.

Logically, that's just a bizarre step to make, anyway....

No. The reason you're not out is because you hit the ball, doesn't matter how fine. It's one of the key laws of the game. The point you are missing is that in a huge amount of cases after the ball nicks the bat and hits the pad, the ball has travelled such a small distance it's impossible to tell whether it would hit the stumps or not.

So then you're into the area of how far does the ball need to travel to be sure? You're just creating grey areas for the sake of it.



I scares me a bit that people are advocating huge changes in the rules to shorten the game.

 

[Carteron]

But the whole point of the LBW law is to penalise a batsman who has failed to hit the ball with his bat, and has subsequently prevented it from hitting the stumps with part of the body. Once someone hits the ball all bets for LBW quite rightly are off, as the batsman has successfully used the piece of equipment he has.

What is next, if I nick one and it hits my back leg I am out caught behind because it would have reached the keeper without me getting in the way!

I know this thread was a bit tongue in cheek but there really is nothing wrong with the LBW law at all. It has changed over the years, and finally reached a point where everyone knows the rule, and it really does serve the purpose for which it was invented

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

But the whole point of the LBW law is to penalise a batsman who has failed to hit the ball with his bat, and has subsequently prevented it from hitting the stumps with part of the body. Once someone hits the ball all bets for LBW quite rightly are off, as the batsman has successfully used the piece of equipment he has.
What is next, if I nick one and it hits my back leg I am out caught behind because it would have reached the keeper without me getting in the way!

I know this thread was a bit tongue in cheek but there really is nothing wrong with the LBW law at all. It has changed over the years, and finally reached a point where everyone knows the rule, and it really does serve the purpose for which it was invented

No mate, because the keeper might drop it anyway. On the other hand the stumps would be hit if your leg wasn't in the way. And before you say the bails might not come off you could use that to say you shouldn't be out LBW at all.

I should have known the SMB would come up with stupid objections. The umpires make subjective decisions about the flight of the ball or whether a genuine shot has been played for LBW all the time.

Everybody knows the LBW law do they? I beg to differ, especially when it comes to balls pitching outside off stump.

I scares me a bit that people are advocating huge changes in the rules to shorten the game.

Not the intention at all. Just fairer. It took 200 years for no-balls to be counted even if you score off the ball. I don't see why an effective mis-hit should save you from being out LBW when it wouldn't stop you being bowled. Like I said, great for batsmen who don't use the middle of their bat.

 

[Carteron]

No mate, because the keeper might drop it anyway. On the other hand the stumps would be hit if your leg wasn't in the way. And before you say the bails might not come off you could use that to say you shouldn't be out LBW at all.

I should have known the SMB would come up with stupid objections. The umpires make subjective decisions about the flight of the ball or whether a genuine shot has been played for LBW all the time.

Everybody knows the LBW law do they? I beg to differ, especially when it comes to balls pitching outside off stump.

Not the intention at all. Just fairer. It took 200 years for no-balls to be counted even if you score off the ball. I don't see why an effective mis-hit should save you from being out LBW when it wouldn't stop you being bowled. Like I said, great for batsmen who don't use the middle of their bat.

Sorry but I just don't get where you are coming from. You touch the ball with the bat and you are doing your job in my opinion. Your suggestion would also be a nightmare to implement. May be able to do it with a load of cameras but to the naked eye they will be virtually impossible to see.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

Sorry but I just don't get where you are coming from. You touch the ball with the bat and you are doing your job in my opinion. Your suggestion would also be a nightmare to implement. May be able to do it with a load of cameras but to the naked eye they will be virtually impossible to see.

You're supposed to use the thick bit, not slide it of the edge. An edge is generally regarded as a bad or lucky shot. It is not the batsman's job to hit it with the edge. If you were meant to play the ball with the edge why do they make the front of the bat wider? How many more ways can I put it that you are not really supposed to use the edge?

I can't understand why you're rewarding a batsman who has effectively played down the wrong line by making him immune from LBW, WHEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BOWLED ANYWAY IF HIS LEG WASN'T IN THE WAY.

Sheesh.

 

[Carteron]

You're supposed to use the thick bit, not slide it of the edge. An edge is generally regarded as a bad or lucky shot. It is not the batsman's job to hit it with the edge. If you were meant to play the ball with the edge why do they make the front of the bat wider? How many more ways can I put it that you are not really supposed to use the edge?

I can't understand why you're rewarding a batsman who has effectively played down the wrong line by making him immune from LBW, WHEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BOWLED ANYWAY IF HIS LEG WASN'T IN THE WAY.

Sheesh.

We are poles apart here. What next, don't award byes when you play and miss and the keeper lets it past?

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

We are poles apart here. What next, don't award byes when you play and miss and the keeper lets it past?

No, why would anyone suggest that? Red herring. Answer the point at the end of my last post. Why do you give immunity from LBW when he would have been bowled?

Byes are a punishment for bad fielding or wayward bowling. They already don't award leg-byes if you don't play a shot, except when it hits you on the helmet.

 

[Carteron]

But surely you are meant to be using the bat by your logic. Why should you be rewarded for playing and missing. Shouldn't you be out "played and missed"

No, why would anyone suggest that? Red herring. Answer the point at the end of my last post. Why do you give immunity from LBW when he would have been bowled?

Byes are a punishment for bad fielding or wayward bowling. They already don't award leg-byes if you don't play a shot, except when it hits you on the helmet.

Because he has hit the ball with his bat. The batsman is entitled to use any part of his body, apart from his hand, as long as it has hit his bat first.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

But surely you are meant to be using the bat by your logic. Why should you be rewarded for playing and missing. Shouldn't you be out "played and missed"

You're not rewarded for playing and missing. The fielding team is penalised for not then fielding it properly, or for it being a wild delivery. I'm sure there's a proper name for this kind of argument by ridiculing one idea by stating a completely different thing would also be ridiculous. Oh yes, it's shite.

Because he has hit the ball with his bat. The batsman is entitled to use any part of his body, apart from his hand, as long as it has hit his bat first.

Yes, that is the law as it stands, but we are talking about potential changes in the law. Ok? Basically you are saying this change is stupid because the law is what it says.

I could equally ask٭, why not say that any case of 'played on' should not be out because the batsman has "done his job" by hitting it? Absolutely logical from your argument, but utterly ridiculous.

٭But wouldn't.

 

[Carteron]

My argument is that the batsmen has shown enough skill in hitting the ball before it hits him, so should therefore not be given out! The law is there fore a reason and whilst laws are changed I can see no reason whatsoever to change it. Batting is difficult enough without adding this as another way to get out. Can you imagine facing the new ball and one jags back sharply. You get an inside edge onto your pad and look up to see the umpire sending you on your way because the inside edge would have continued on to the stumps. Ludicrous!

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

My argument is that the batsmen has shown enough skill in hitting the ball before it hits him, so should therefore not be given out! The law is there fore a reason and whilst laws are changed I can see no reason whatsoever to change it. Batting is difficult enough without adding this as another way to get out. Can you imagine facing the new ball and one jags back sharply. You get an inside edge onto your pad and look up to see the umpire sending you on your way because the inside edge would have continued on to the stumps. Ludicrous!

I think I also said I wouldn't allow bat/pad catches, to even things up.

What is ludicrous is that you think getting thin edges is a skill. Why allow edged catches if so?

 

[Carteron]

Isn't that even more ridiculous though? You hit it and you are caught but its given not out. Also what if you edge one that would have missed the stumps towards the stumps and get in the way of it. Is that also out, even if the bowler hasn't bowled it at the stumps? Getting an inside edge on a big off cutter to save yourself is actually a skill and allowing you to be given out LBW in such a scenario would create a huge imbalance in favour of the bowling team.

Your rule would also only be enforcable by Hawkeye there are so many variables, so useless in anything lower than Test Cricket.

 

[Steak Pie]

No mate, because the keeper might drop it anyway. On the other hand the stumps would be hit if your leg wasn't in the way. And before you say the bails might not come off you could use that to say you shouldn't be out LBW at all.

I should have known the SMB would come up with stupid objections. The umpires make subjective decisions about the flight of the ball or whether a genuine shot has been played for LBW all the time.

Everybody knows the LBW law do they? I beg to differ, especially when it comes to balls pitching outside off stump.

Not the intention at all. Just fairer. It took 200 years for no-balls to be counted even if you score off the ball. I don't see why an effective mis-hit should save you from being out LBW when it wouldn't stop you being bowled. Like I said, great for batsmen who don't use the middle of their bat.

Balls man. The Ump has 22 yards to judge the flight of the ball, but after an edge he's got what? An inch? Three inches mebbes?

It's a stupid idea.

I think I also said I wouldn't allow bat/pad catches, to even things up.

What is ludicrous is that you think getting thin edges is a skill. Why allow edged catches if so?

Even better.

Hits bat then pad, then may have hit the stumps = Out
Hits bat then pad, then caught = Not out

Mental.

 

[mikemanc]

Balls man. The Ump has 22 yards to judge the flight of the ball, but after an edge he's got what? An inch? Three inches mebbes?

It's a stupid idea.



Even better.

Hits bat then pad, then may have hit the stumps = Out
Hits bat then pad, then caught = Not out

Mental.

I reckon in football if a shot hits one of your players but it would have gone in otherwise a goal should be awarded as you've done everything right.

 

[TwasOnTheFifthOfMay]

Isn't that even more ridiculous though? You hit it and you are caught but its given not out..

Yes well done, that's what I'm saying. And it is exactly the same logic you are using to say bat/pad LBWs shouldn't be out. That the batsman's so called 'skill' in getting an edge should save him from being out.

Balls man. The Ump has 22 yards to judge the flight of the ball, but after an edge he's got what? An inch? Three inches mebbes?

It's a stupid idea.



Even better.

Hits bat then pad, then may have hit the stumps = Out
Hits bat then pad, then caught = Not out

Mental.

Mental. You already can't be out if you get caught off the helmet. By the way, we have video technology if the ump isn't sure these days.

Try to think things through first.

 

[Steak Pie]

Mental. You already can't be out if you get caught off the helmet. By the way, we have video technology if the ump isn't sure these days.

Try to think things through first.

Yes you can, as long as it hits the bat as well. Unless you mean an errant helmet on the pitch from the fielding side, but you couldn't possibly be using that as an example?

That's the thing though, I have thought it through. Hawkeye needs a minimum distance and a 360 degree view to accurately predict the path of the ball. With your insane new law, you won't have that. The more I think about it, the more I think you're taking the piss.

 

[Carteron]

Yes well done, that's what I'm saying. And it is exactly the same logic you are using to say bat/pad LBWs shouldn't be out. That the batsman's so called 'skill' in getting an edge should save him from being out.

Mental. You already can't be out if you get caught off the helmet. By the way, we have video technology if the ump isn't sure these days.

Try to think things through first.

Might be tricky to enforce at your average colliery welfare

 

[badger55]

This is the most stupid post I have seen on this forum, and that takes some doing !
Absolutely ridiculous suggestion and impossible to implement.
The game is technical enough without out this. Let us all enjoy this beautiful crazy game, please, and move on to something else !