Batting - Really that much easier these days?

[wpdavid]

One easy change would be to allow LBW's if the ball is outisde the line of off stump but would go on to hit even if the batsman is playing a shot. I can't think of a logical reason for the present rule.

Maybe a new ball to be available every 60 overs instad of 80.

 

[silentstriker]

One easy change would be to allow LBW's if the ball is outisde the line of off stump but would go on to hit even if the batsman is playing a shot. I can't think of a logical reason for the present rule.

Maybe a new ball to be available every 60 overs instad of 80.

Agree with the first - disagree with the second.

I'd also like LBWs to be given if the ball pitches outside leg and is going on to hit the stumps.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'd also like LBWs to be given if the ball pitches outside leg and is going on to hit the stumps.

Wonderful idea, they should also be out if they get an edge but the ball doesn't deviate from it's line.

 

[Manee]

I'd also like LBWs to be given if the ball pitches outside leg and is going on to hit the stumps.

Please no. Leg spinners (or slow left arm) going around the wicket in test matches would control play completely by bowling fullish outside leg.

 

[Manee]

One easy change would be to allow LBW's if the ball is outisde the line of off stump but would go on to hit even if the batsman is playing a shot. I can't think of a logical reason for the present rule.

It is made to create a distinct negative for padding up outside off stump as opposed to playing a shot.

 

[Goughy]

Changing the LBW law would require years of trials to measure its impact on the game.

Be thankful that we have it the way it is rather than have the pre-1935 situation where the ball had to pitch in line.

Major changes like that have to be thoroughly considered. I remember the reduction of the seam on the ball for the 1990 County Championship and the batsmen went run crazy.

Have to be careful with twiddling with the stucture of the game.

With all the protection the batsmen have, how about allowing legitimate old-fashioned leg theory to be allowed by getting rid of the fielding restrictions rather than forcing bowlers to have to bowl off-theory.

 

[Manee]

With all the protection the batsmen have, how about allowing legitimate old-fashioned leg theory to be allowed by getting rid of the fielding restrictions rather than forcing bowlers to have to bowl off-theory.

No, in my opinion. Imagine leg spinners bowling around the wicket with a packed leg side field in a day five pitch in a test match, the batsman would rarely get a run and teams could be bowled out for 50. I think off theory bowling encourages better shots from an aesthetic standpoint and I feel that aesthetics is a key to cricket batting being the beautiful art of the most beautiful game. If leg theory returned, we would see many balls passing outside leg stump and this is the most tedious thing in cricket to watch in my opion.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd also like LBWs to be given if the ball pitches outside leg and is going on to hit the stumps.

Should be hitting the stumps and strike the batsmen in line for mine. Wouldn't benefit bowlers pitching it a yard outside leg as much.

I personally find it ridiculous that a batsman can almost pad up at will to a bowler going around the stumps, with extremely little risk of getting out lbw.

As long as the bowlers are targeting the stumps, I don't see any reason why a change in angle should be so strongly discouraged.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, I agree that it would need lots of try outs. I am not a big fan of implementing changes at the Test level before they are tried out at the FC level for at least three years - especially not big changes.

 

[neville cardus]

Why not apply the same legislation to a ball pitching outside leg-stump as that to one which hits the batsman outside off-? Pad-play has always been one of the game's greatest blights -- curse you, Arthur! --, and it's high time that we eliminate it.

 

[Jono]

Regarding the LBW law, I do agree that it shouldn't need to hit the batsman in line of the stumps if he's playing a shot. Never really liked that law.

Not convinced that LBWs should be given even if they pitches outside leg, but I do see the merit in its suggestion. But i'm 100% convinced that if a batsman gets hit outside the line of offstump, it shouldn't matter if he's playing a shot or not, if its going on to hit the stumps and he's missed it, he should be dismissed.

 

[White Lightning]

I wouldn't mind see the lbw rule changed to allow the batsman be given out should the ball hit him outside the line of off stump.

i wouldn't like the leg stump lbw law scrapped though. on a fifth day (even early in the test) bowlers would just go around the wicket and create havoc.

There is no reason for the boundary ropes coming in as far as they do in some venues. i'm all for the ropes to protect fieldsman against the gutters and fences, but 3 metres is more than enough. Take the long boundary at Adelaide, the rope is bought in by about 20 metres. it is redicolous.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't see any need to change the LBW law at all, TBH.

I'd suggest balls with a more prominent seam.

 

[neville cardus]

Regarding the LBW law, I do agree that it shouldn't need to hit the batsman in line of the stumps if he's playing a shot. Never really liked that law.

Not convinced that LBWs should be given even if they pitches outside leg, but I do see the merit in its suggestion. But i'm 100% convinced that if a batsman gets hit outside the line of offstump, it shouldn't matter if he's playing a shot or not, if its going on to hit the stumps and he's missed it, he should be dismissed.

I disagree. We've all been brought up as batsmen to use the front pad as a second line of defence when pushing outside the off-stump. To turn one's defence into one's bane is tantamount to cricketing sabotage.

 

[wpdavid]

I disagree. We've all been brought up as batsmen to use the front pad as a second line of defence when pushing outside the off-stump. To turn one's defence into one's bane is tantamount to cricketing sabotage.

But batsmen would still have the pad as a second line of defence when the ball takes the inside edge which, I think, was originally the idea.

 

[shortpitched713]

I find it interesting that some of you guys would like to eliminate pad play entirely for balls landing outside the off stump, but are okay with batsmen not even having to use their bat for balls landing outside leg.

At least I think, if you're not playing a stroke but the ball pitches outside leg, the same rule should apply as if you were playing a stroke and the ball pitches outside off. Namely, if the ball was going to hit the stumps, and made contact in line with the stumps, it should be out. Fine if you're playing a stroke it shouldn't be lbw, but just being allowed to pad balls like those away seems positively anachronistic considering how cricket has developed in the last half century.

 

[neville cardus]

I find it interesting that some of you guys would like to eliminate pad play entirely for balls landing outside the off stump, but are okay with batsmen not even having to use their bat for balls landing outside leg.
At least I think, if you're not playing a stroke but the ball pitches outside leg, the same rule should apply as if you were playing a stroke and the ball pitches outside off. Namely, if the ball was going to hit the stumps, and made contact in line with the stumps, it should be out. Fine if you're playing a stroke it shouldn't be lbw, but just being allowed to pad balls like those away seems positively anachronistic considering how cricket has developed in the last half century.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[neville cardus]

But batsmen would still have the pad as a second line of defence when the ball takes the inside edge which, I think, was originally the idea.

Neya.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

At least I think, if you're not playing a stroke but the ball pitches outside leg, the same rule should apply as if you were playing a stroke and the ball pitches outside off. Namely, if the ball was going to hit the stumps, and made contact in line with the stumps, it should be out. Fine if you're playing a stroke it shouldn't be lbw, but just being allowed to pad balls like those away seems positively anachronistic considering how cricket has developed in the last half century.

The snag with that is that it gives spinners the opportunity to bowl very wide of leg stump into the bowlers foot marks and make the ball turn all over the place but the batsman dare not play no stroke in case it just happens to hit the foot marks and head for the stumps. The bowler could ball there all day and it would leave the batsman with no option but to risk playing at very wide deliveries.

 

[shortpitched713]

The snag with that is that it gives spinners the opportunity to bowl very wide of leg stump into the bowlers foot marks and make the ball turn all over the place but the batsman dare not play no stroke in case it just happens to hit the foot marks and head for the stumps. The bowler could ball there all day and it would leave the batsman with no option but to risk playing at very wide deliveries.

They can play with the goddamned bat and pad held together if they want to be so negative. I mean, its not particularly different to what they have to do to balls coming from outside the off stump, especially for a left hander.