Five things I don't get about cricket

[Dan]

Dont be silly. Those all came off the bat. Runs that occur because of the ball ricocheting off the equipment thats meant to protect you shouldn't count. Its called 'batting' not 'thigh padding'

That isn't what you argued, though. You said leg byes are illegitimate because it rewards the batsman for ****ing up. As do runs from edges, or anything unintentional. Be consistent, or ban none of them.

 

[cnerd123]

I think if you're allowed to score runs off your pads, you should be allowed to be caught off your pads too.

 

[Dan]

Not sure I follow this line of thinking. I get what you'r saying over all, but pretty sure the bat is for scoring runs. You can defend your wicket with the body as well and you get out if it falls under certain parameters.

Regarding Legbyes, yes I agree with you that runs shouldn't just be about perfectly timed drives. That being said there is a difference between an outside edge and completely failing to connect with the ball and getting hit on the pads.

I can see both sides of the argument. Not sure how we can tweak this..perhaps take out leg byes in Test cricket and only have them in ODIs?

Exactly; there's a risk and a reward to using your body to defend your wicket. Why unbalance the symmetry of the game by removing that reward?

What is the difference between edging the ball and it ricocheting off a thigh pad while playing the shot? Other than this rubbish privileging of the bat in wicket defence?

 

[Daemon]

Dan listen to yourself. You just said a cricket bat is not for scoring runs.

 

[Dan]

I think if you're allowed to score runs off your pads, you should be allowed to be caught off your pads too.

No, you're caught off the bat. You're LBW off the pads. If the bowler strikes the pads in a way that is not conducive to LBW, it's as much their mistake as hitting the bat in the way that doesn't bring about a catch. Or bowling a ball that doesn't hit the pegs when the batsman misses it.

If you bowl an inswinging yorker trying to get an LBW, it will miss leg stump, and it ricochets off the foot for four leg byes, it's just as much, if not more, the bowler's fault for poorly executing the strategy for dismissal.

 

[Daemon]

If you bowl an inswinging yorker trying to get an LBW, it will miss leg stump, and it ricochets off the foot for four leg byes, it's just as much, if not more, the bowler's fault for poorly executing the strategy for dismissal.

Why do the rules not include leg byes in the bowlers figures then?

 

[Dan]

Dan listen to yourself. You just said a cricket bat is not for scoring runs.

If you deconstruct the game to its core elements, it isn't. It's about defending your wicket, and runs are a byproduct of that.

 

[Dan]

Why do the rules not include leg byes in the bowlers figures then?

Because they are not runs, and a bowler's figures are 'runs conceded'.

 

[FBU]

I don't get a right arm bowler not getting a wicket if pitching outside the line even if the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps.

 

[Daemon]

If you deconstruct the game to its core elements, it isn't. It's about defending your wicket, and runs are a byproduct of that.

What? Cricket is about scoring runs and taking wickets. If you're telling me defending your wicket is the primary objective then why play any shot to anything outside the stumps at all? Might edge one. Why even take a run? You might get run out.

There are times when you need to preserve your wicket and there are times when you need to score runs. You can't 'deconstruct' the game like that.

 

[Daemon]

Because they are not runs, and a bowler's figures are 'runs conceded'.

A leg bye is not a run? What is it then?

 

[cnerd123]

Yea Dan, its all well and good to look into the history books and deconstruct what cricket was at its essence when it was first created, but that holds little to no relevance to cricket as it is being played today. We aren't shephards playing in fields with sticks and rocks anymore. We dont bowl underarm lobs anymore, lbw laws have changed, the equipment we use and conditions we play in have drastically changed.

Leg byes as they stand dont make sense anymore

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you deconstruct the game to its core elements, it isn't. It's about defending your wicket, and runs are a byproduct of that.

Yeah that's why the team that wins the match is the team that survives the most balls, not the team that scores the most runs


wait . .

 

[honestbharani]

poor Dan..

But I get what Dan is saying. Legbyes are there because its kinda a negative for the bowler if he is not bowling at the stumps. I dont mind it at all and I dont think it is something that needs to be tinkered with. There are a number of things that need to be fixed before we ever have to consider leg byes and their place in cricket.

 

[Dan]

A leg bye is not a run? What is it then?

...a leg bye.

 

[Dan]

Yeah that's why the team that wins the match is the team that survives the most balls, not the team that scores the most runs


wait . .

Don't lose 20 wickets, declarations notwithstanding, and you cannot lose a Test match.

 

[Dan]

Yea Dan, its all well and good to look into the history books and deconstruct what cricket was at its essence when it was first created, but that holds little to no relevance to cricket as it is being played today. We aren't shephards playing in fields with sticks and rocks anymore. We dont bowl underarm lobs anymore, lbw laws have changed, the equipment we use and conditions we play in have drastically changed.

Leg byes as they stand dont make sense anymore

A change in tactics and style of play =/= a change to the fundamental underpinnings of cricket. I mean, sure, we all want to score runs. But what's the first piece of advice given to a young batsman? "Stay out there, the runs will come eventually" or, more simply, "don't get out".

You can't make runs in the pavilion; successfully defending your wicket is a prerequisite to scoring runs.

 

[cnerd123]

Don't lose 20 wickets, declarations notwithstanding, and you cannot lose a Test match.

Literally not true

Test forfeited: England win | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[OverratedSanity]

Let byes punish fielders, not the bowler. Byes punish the wicket keeper. Neither of them give credit to the batsman . But they do give credit to the batting team for being quick enough to complete the run. It's all fair enough.

 

[Black_Warrior]

poor Dan..

But I get what Dan is saying. Legbyes are there because its kinda a negative for the bowler if he is not bowling at the stumps. I dont mind it at all and I dont think it is something that needs to be tinkered with. There are a number of things that need to be fixed before we ever have to consider leg byes and their place in cricket.

But here's the thing though..not all leg byes are because the bowlers were bowling negative. Legbyes can happen for so many different reasons.