Tweaking lbw rule.

[Parkside]

LBW Rules have been changed to counter switch hitting so cant see your argument on that one. Bar 20/20 how is the balance not even, you only have to see the World cup to show its balanced and how times have england scored 400+ in the last few years at test match level? and the county championship which is as bowler friendly game as it comes. I guarantee batsman would be lucky to hit a Century a season and local games would be a mockery. Genuinely not sure people are truely watching the game or play it to see that this is a crazy idea

Wasn't aware a change had been enshrined in law but am aware that umpires after a switch hit interpret that line of leg and off stump have interchanged as the change in stance is made. That make things pretty unfair on the bowler imo.
Ball tracking evidence since 2006 suggests that if the rule was adopted average scores would change from 320 to 267 and a fall of wicket every 51 balls compared to 61 previously -hardly a drastic change. The new figures compare to stats when wickets were uncovered and certainly centuries were plentiful then in 1st class cricket. They were less in club cricket but certainly not rare but on the plus side draws in time cricket were far less likely.
The suggestion incidentally comes from Ian Chappell -I believe he's been truly involved playing or watching at a high level for 50+ years.

 

[Skandhaless]

Few left handers averages will be going up in smoke .

 

[Voice of fair play]

As someone who still prefers the old offside rule and think the current interpretation has ruined football I'm not confident.

No No No mate the old offside rule under George Graham’s Arsenal was terrible to watch.

You can’t have a 40 yard volley ruled out because somebody offside on the wing miles away from play!

Football a lot more entertaining from it and more goals

 

[Bri]

No No No mate the old offside rule under George Graham’s Arsenal was terrible to watch.

You can’t have a 40 yard volley ruled out because somebody offside on the wing miles away from play!

Football a lot more entertaining from it and more goals

I know, there were perverse Instances results but
a) it added another tactical level, Brian Clough's Nottm Forest couldn't have won without his offside trap and counter-attacking play
b) there is practically no off-side rule presently. or at least you can't depend on the referee blowing up. Many goals are scored with an attacker standing in the 6 yard box in front of the last defender - I've seen instances of attackers standing not only inside the box but actually standing in front of the goalkeeper.
c) And number of goals doesn't necessarily improve football. Why, you might as well judge the quality of a cricket match by the number of sixes scored!

And (b) is why I'm would be against a change to the LBW rule, unintended consequences.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I know, there were perverse Instances results but
a) it added another tactical level, Brian Clough's Nottm Forest couldn't have won without his offside trap and counter-attacking play
b) there is practically no off-side rule presently. or at least you can't depend on the referee blowing up. Many goals are scored with an attacker standing in the 6 yard box in front of the last defender - I've seen instances of attackers standing not only inside the box but actually standing in front of the goalkeeper.
c) And number of goals doesn't necessarily improve football. Why, you might as well judge the quality of a cricket match by the number of sixes scored!

And (b) is why I'm would be against a change to the LBW rule, unintended consequences.

Brian Clough’s side was counter attacking but imo it was based of defending deep getting men behind the ball then playing on the break, don’t remember the Forest side playing the offside trap ,not anywhere in the same as Graham’s Arsenal did

Honestly think football a lot more entertaining now, like I said hated it when a screamer went in from outside the box following a corner but was ruled our because the corner taker had not come out as quickly as the defence that can’t be right!

I know a lot of years ago but that side under Graham was terrible to watch, one of the most boring teams to win the league imo.

They had the offside trap off to a tee and was boring as owt

 

[Eggman]

Ridiculous idea, local games would be over in a matter of overs, if it isn't broke why fix it, the only change that overall needs changing is playing with the dukes ball at international right across the world. Do we also want shorter international and county games too as that is what you would get, 1 ball shining cloth per team is a far more sensible idea.
The only change I have ever thought that should be changed is to remove leg byes as I just don't think they are right but again the implications of this are that it would likely cause a lot of issues at local levels in terms of umpires calls and at international level more breaks in play.

I agree, why change for the sake of it.

Some of these rules are there to enhance the game.

If this rule change came in a bowler has to just aim at the stumps rather than take in to consideration whether the batsmen is right or left handed (or the bowler coming over or round the wicket) and pitch the ball accordingly.

 

[wayne entwhistle no9]

Few left handers averages will be going up in smoke .

Exactly what I was thinking. Over the years all these left handers who have led a charmed life will be in for a big wake up call.

 

[mikemanc]

Wasn't aware a change had been enshrined in law but am aware that umpires after a switch hit interpret that line of leg and off stump have interchanged as the change in stance is made. That make things pretty unfair on the bowler imo.
Ball tracking evidence since 2006 suggests that if the rule was adopted average scores would change from 320 to 267 and a fall of wicket every 51 balls compared to 61 previously -hardly a drastic change. The new figures compare to stats when wickets were uncovered and certainly centuries were plentiful then in 1st class cricket. They were less in club cricket but certainly not rare but on the plus side draws in time cricket were far less likely.
The suggestion incidentally comes from Ian Chappell -I believe he's been truly involved playing or watching at a high level for 50+ years.

Presumably there's such little impact on the stats is because people aren't trying to get LBWs by bowling deliveries that pitch on the leg side? Or would pitching outside leg still be not out? It would be so different having to protect against a ball coming into your pads without the legs getting in the way, batsmen would have to learn an entirely new stance and way of playing, it would change the game entirely.

 

[The Rat]

no thanks, test cricket is absolutely fine

 

[Jap Stammer]

Overs cricket - ODIs, and the like - would become a borefest as bowlers wold just bowl at a batsman's legs and pack the leg-side with fielders.

You'd have to bring a whole raft of other changes to balance it out.

Cover drives and square cuts would become rarer than chicken lips - the game would be ruined as it degenerates into a bunch of leg-side sloggers on both sides slugging it out.

I can remember playing against Gateshead Fell when they used to open up with two left-arm spinners (one was the Aussie pro) who would both spear the ball in at the batsman's pads from the word go. As there were no restrictions in those days, they would bowl the full 55 overs between them and most teams were lucky if they got 150. They wouldn't have got anywhere near that if you could be out LBW from a ball pitching outside leg.

The games were f@@king boring and no-one liked playing against them. They were very successful for a while because of it.

 

[Parkside]

Overs cricket - ODIs, and the like - would become a borefest as bowlers wold just bowl at a batsman's legs and pack the leg-side with fielders.

You'd have to bring a whole raft of other changes to balance it out.

Cover drives and square cuts would become rarer than chicken lips - the game would be ruined as it degenerates into a bunch of leg-side sloggers on both sides slugging it out.

I can remember playing against Gateshead Fell when they used to open up with two left-arm spinners (one was the Aussie pro) who would both spear the ball in at the batsman's pads from the word go. As there were no restrictions in those days, they would bowl the full 55 overs between them and most teams were lucky if they got 150. They wouldn't have got anywhere near that if you could be out LBW from a ball pitching outside leg.

The games were f@@king boring and no-one liked playing against them. They were very successful for a while because of it.

Aussie named Hill and Derek(or David) Young.
The pitching outside leg legislation came in as a direct consequence of Bodyline. Prior to that scores on average were higher than today, and pitches uncovered. Don't shoot the messanger, I doubt there's any chance of this change being adopted but in white ball cricket I certainly believe legislation is necessary to even up the contest between bat and ball. Test cricket is fine as it is except few watch it apart from in England.

 

[Jap Stammer]

Aussie named Hill and Derek(or David) Young.

That's the lads - David Young was his name, can't remember the Aussie's first name.

The pitching outside leg legislation came in as a direct consequence of Bodyline. Prior to that scores on average were higher than today, and pitches uncovered. Don't shoot the messanger, I doubt there's any chance of this change being adopted but in white ball cricket I certainly believe legislation is necessary to even up the contest between bat and ball. Test cricket is fine as it is except few watch it apart from in England.

I had an inkling that pitching outside leg was brought in to combat 'leg theory' (Bodyline) but wasn't sure if they only brought in the restriction on the number of players behind square on the leg-side because of it.

Another great English innovation scuppered by the whinging Aussies .

 

[TheRey]

I agree, why change for the sake of it.

Some of these rules are there to enhance the game.

If this rule change came in a bowler has to just aim at the stumps rather than take in to consideration whether the batsmen is right or left handed (or the bowler coming over or round the wicket) and pitch the ball accordingly.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a bowler targeting the stumps can possibly be a bad thing. Batsman still has the responsibility to hit the bloody thing.

 

[marathon9]

LBW is LBW... Don't mess with the game....or is a catch a catch... Seams to me (seems)

 

[Eggman]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a bowler targeting the stumps can possibly be a bad thing. Batsman still has the responsibility to hit the bloody thing.

No need to apologise

 

[Carteron]

Surely the existing rules are to even things up a bit when the pitch is worn. Mediocre spinners would be taking 7 and 8 fers in the 4th innings of games changing the rules like this. The batsman is already at a huge disadvantage with footmarks all over, this would be crazy.

 

[anth]

strangely there is next to nothing about this posted in the last week according to google, this thread is the 3rd top result! Surely if it was being considered there would be more than behind the paywall of a tory propaganda publishment.

 

[TheRey]

Surely the existing rules are to even things up a bit when the pitch is worn. Mediocre spinners would be taking 7 and 8 fers in the 4th innings of games changing the rules like this. The batsman is already at a huge disadvantage with footmarks all over, this would be crazy.

Come on man, surely you can't say the batsman is at a huge disadvantage with a straight face!?
The game is so weighted towards batters it's farcical.

 

[Steak Pie]

Aussie named Hill and Derek(or David) Young.
The pitching outside leg legislation came in as a direct consequence of Bodyline. Prior to that scores on average were higher than today, and pitches uncovered. Don't shoot the messanger, I doubt there's any chance of this change being adopted but in white ball cricket I certainly believe legislation is necessary to even up the contest between bat and ball. Test cricket is fine as it is except few watch it apart from in England.

The 1930's change was to allow ball pitching outside off stump, instead of just in line. Outside leg stump has never been a thing.

 

[Parkside]

Surely the existing rules are to even things up a bit when the pitch is worn. Mediocre spinners would be taking 7 and 8 fers in the 4th innings of games changing the rules like this. The batsman is already at a huge disadvantage with footmarks all over, this would be crazy.

How exactly is an off spinner advantaged by this particular change? Admittedly SLA and leg spinners would be but currently they're as rare as hens' teeth.Anything to encourage these types is surely to be encouraged. Prior to the introduction of the outside leg stump ruling average scores were higher than at present and pitches were uncovered.

The 1930's change was to allow ball pitching outside off stump, instead of just in line. Outside leg stump has never been a thing.

we'll beg to differ on that. I'm taking Scyld Berry's word on it. He's far more knowledgeable on cricket than I am.