Tweaking lbw rule.
- Thread starter Parkside
- Start date
TheRey
Winger
I get that it's a massive change to the sport that we all know and love, but surely people can see that the imbalance between bat and ball needs to be addressed, and we should try things and see what works?
Personally I'd always found the LBW law bizarre anyway - when we're kids playing with our mates in the street, the rule was always if it's gonna hit the stumps you're out - as I said earlier on, for me that should be the law, period.
But anything that has the potential to bring the bowlers slightly more into a batsmen weighted game should be looked at as a positive.
Personally I'd always found the LBW law bizarre anyway - when we're kids playing with our mates in the street, the rule was always if it's gonna hit the stumps you're out - as I said earlier on, for me that should be the law, period.
But anything that has the potential to bring the bowlers slightly more into a batsmen weighted game should be looked at as a positive.
eddyfinn
Striker
This is all based on a normal line, wait till right hand bowlers start around the wicket in a test match to right hand batsmen, spinners change their line, bowlers just bowl from wide of the wicket it would be an absoloute farce
Last edited:
Steak Pie
Striker
Point me in the direction of where he said this please, so I can correct him.
Ffs-in a recent article by him obviously. If you doubt my word that's your prerogative. Might even have been another writer. Very doubtful if it'll be adopted but what astounds me is how many experts on here can state it would be a disaster without producing a shred of evidence.
dangermows
Striker
Lifting.
Eggman
Winger
Bowling at the stumps, how radical, it shouldnt matter, if its hitting its out
You just don’t get it, do you ?
Add in where the ball pitched, where did it hit the pad, was the batsmen playing a shot.
Far more skill attached to getting a LBW with those laws, than just plain and simple was it going on to hit the stumps.
Steak Pie
Striker
No need for the attitude chief. You said you believed him, that's fine but he's wrong, so I thought I'd correct him.
It would make a huge change, you'd see right arm round to right handers aiming at the batters feet, and so the batters having to take guard well out side leg stump. It would be a huge fundamental change, which is what I said. Jeez man.
TheRey
Winger
Batsmen would adapt though. For example, the introduction of DRS made batsmen adopt a completely different approach to facing spin, because they could no longer just pad up to every delivery knowing the umpire would just say not out.
The game has to keep evolving
I don't really get the "bowlers will just go around the wicket and smash it at a batsman's feet" logic either. You really think that in England, with a Dukes ball and overcast skies, you're going to deviate from over the wicket, looking to get a batsman to nick off? No way.
You might try it somewhere like Australia with a Kookaburra ball - but that's surely a positive, as it addresses how impotent the kookaburra is
Last edited:
Steak Pie
Striker
True, it has to evolve. DRS was a tweak though, it didn't change the rules fundamentally. They could change the DRS from umpires call being half the ball to - say - a centimetre, to account for the flaws in the tech, and give the bowlers a huge boost. Evolution not revolution.
Why wouldn't you. And once the batter is taking guard out side leg, push a wobbler across him and watch him fall over trying to reach it. Much easier getting him to nick one when he has no chance of getting in line.
Last edited:
TheRey
Winger
That's a fair point. But I still feel addressing the discrepancy between bat and ball is worth the change
And is that any worse than watching 540-7d play 630-4d on a drop in pitch with a Kookaburra ball in Aus?
Also can I say how awesome it is to be back having cricketing debates again. Seems far too long since we were all arguing about who should be keeping wicket in SA
Last edited:
Steak Pie
Striker
No probably not, but don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Try a Duke ball, or Bancroft back in side.........
TheRey
Winger
Ah, so that's why you lot brought him over.No probably not, but don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Try a Duke ball, or Bancroft back in side.........
Steak Pie
Striker
Ah, so that's why you lot brought him over.
If you sandpaper the ball at The Riv on a cloudy day, you'll need 15 slips and 3 backstops.
My Dad gave up his membership on the back of it, won't go back until he's gone and might not even then. Very sad.
It wasn't attitude it was astonisment that Steak Pie is so certain that he's correct. Presumably you're quoting from a reliable source as, no doubt, was the experienced ,accredited cricket writer. Certainly neither of you would have been around when the change was made. Cricket has evolved massively in the past twenty years, find it hard to accept that you can state how batsmen and bowlers will react to the change.
Steak Pie
Striker
Just musings on a message board chief, all a matter of opinion.
Apart from the rule change bit, that's a matter of fact. Have a look on the Wisden site, or literally any website to do with the history of cricket. For I, Steak Pie, is certain he's correct on this matter.
if your source is the yellow bible then it certainly is cricket fact - that addresses my astonishment on that theme. If stating how players will react in addressing the proposed amendment is only musing, fair comment. It's the condemnation without trial that irks me.Stats from Cricviz suggest average scores will decrease from 312 to 267-hardly seismatic which some are suggesting. Don't see how anything that may encourage spin bowling, particularly legspin, should be condemned without serious consideration.
Steak Pie
Striker
Righto, all good.
Nothing else meant from my side other than a bit of craic.The thing is, once the genie is out of the bottle it doesn't go back in. So these things need to be thought through extremely carefully before they're even considered.
So put a bowler like Malinga going round, he could pitch it a foot outside leg and hit the stumps. At pace it becomes near impossible to defend. And with a leggie, you could pitch it miles outside, 4 or 5 feet, turn it in the footmarks and have calf before wicket. So now you've got the batter taking guard out near return crease to try and get his head over it.
It would fundamentally change batting forever, the classic stance would be pretty much redundant immediately.
yes but that's conjecture. Malinga wasn't unplayable, just difficult to pick up because of his low trajectory. Footmarks or not, not so sure that there are many leggies can turn a ball of good length 5ft to hit the wickets.Warnes ball of the century didn't turn that much.Righto, all good.
The thing is, once the genie is out of the bottle it doesn't go back in. So these things need to be thought through extremely carefully before they're even considered.
So put a bowler like Malinga going round, he could pitch it a foot outside leg and hit the stumps. At pace it becomes near impossible to defend. And with a leggie, you could pitch it miles outside, 4 or 5 feet, turn it in the footmarks and have calf before wicket. So now you've got the batter taking guard out near return crease to try and get his head over it.
It would fundamentally change batting forever, the classic stance would be pretty much redundant immediately.
Balls turning that much would be a major problem also for the left hander.Obviously the original rule was there for a reason but techniques and conditions have changed massively since then;
Last edited:
I'm talking about when there are footmarks. It would be virtually impossible to chase more than 100 with a half decent spinner in a side.
Inswing bowling would be insane too. Jimmy Anderson would go straight through a team at the hint of a bit of swing. Not being able to get forward and outside the line would make it near impossible to play,
Maybe T20 and 50 over stuff is weighted for the batter. Change whatever you like with them, but in the longer form changing the LBW rule would be horrific, and simply their to please those with the attention span of a gnat.
