Ian Chappell's proposed changed to the lbw law

[iPankajKhanna]

What do you think of Ian Chappell's proposed changed to the lbw law?

As per Ian Chappell the new lbw law should simply say: Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire's opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted.

Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it's going to hit the stumps, it's out.

 

[honestbharani]

The pitching outside leg thing was brought as it can be a bit of a blind spot for the batsman... And the attempting a shot thingy came in to ensure batsmen simply did not pad up to balls pitching outside offstump. I think it might become a bit too bowler friendly if we were to implement his ideas tbh.

 

[Kraken]

Would completely change the game if this rule was implemented, and it would be for the worse imo.

 

[Prince EWS]

The incentive for left arm slow bowlers to just stack the leg side field and dump it in the rough against RHBs (and offies to LHBs) would make for some seriously unattractive cricket at times despite restoring some "balance" if the leg side rule was changed, but I think I could possibly be convinced on the outside the line of off rule.

 

[trundler]

Impact having to be in line with the stumps is redundant and pointlessly restrictive. That should changed. Allowing balls pitching outside leg would encourage negative tactics. That bit is fine as it is.

 

[Starfighter]

Current rule is fine as it is, however there needs to be a crackdown on batsmen who hide the bat behind their leg. This shouldn't be counted as playing a shot.

 

[morgieb]

I don't really get the obsession between addressing the balance between bat and ball in today's climate. In Tests the balance is perfectly fine. In T20's people just want to see slog fests anyway so meh there. Only really ODI's is where the balance is a bit skewed and even then a lot of that is down to rotation obsessions regarding quicks.

Ten years ago the balance had to be addressed, but they have.

 

[honestbharani]

Juz friggin use the Dukes for all tests, or at least the WTC tests and watch how much more fun tests are as a whole, instead of having to tinker with so many basic facets of the game.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Some umpires will have a field day...

 

[Woodster]

If we were to experience a total influx of flat lifeless batting decks then I can understand some form of change in order to redress the balance between bat and ball, however, I don’t think that’s the case at all. In fact if the pitches offer some movement and there’s some swing around it seems the batsmen are in need of some assistance in their favour as there’s a lack of technical ability around the world in order to cope with the moving ball. For me consistently producing pitches that give both batsmen and bowlers (of all kinds) sufficient encouragement in which to display their talents is far more acceptable than some elaborate/unnecessary LBW changes.

Something will have to be done in terms of an acceptable mode of looking after the ball if sweat and saliva are now ruled out.

 

[iPankajKhanna]

Thank you so much guys. Here is my latest essay "Chappelli’s Achilles Heel" which is a critique of lbw law change that Ian Chappell has proposed through his latest column for @ESPNcricinfo

http://highwaytimes.com/chappellis-achilles-heel-a-critique-of-the-proposed-lbw-law-change/

 

[TheJediBrah]

No pitching outside leg rule has to stay. We'd see a lot of really ****, stupid cricket if you can get lbws pitching outside leg. With that rule a guy like Warne would be averaging 10

 

[Line and Length]

Current rule is fine as it is, however there needs to be a crackdown on batsmen who hide the bat behind their leg. This shouldn't be counted as playing a shot.

I fully agree. The tactic is over-used (abused?) at all levels and umpires should be instructed to watch for it and to rule accordingly.

 

[Line and Length]

The obvious tactic to be adopted by bowlers if this rule came into vogue would be to bowl right arm around the wicket, pitching outside leg but aiming at the stumps. This would result in leg side fields and very unattractive, negative cricket.
The last good idea that Chappelli had died of loneliness!

 

[SteveNZ]

What do you think of Ian Chappell's proposed changed to the lbw law?

As per Ian Chappell the new lbw law should simply say: Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire's opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted.

Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it's going to hit the stumps, it's out.

Can we get a message to Ian Chappell suggesting that just before he can talk, doesn't mean he should.

I'm sorry, so this suggests if you get hit on the pad anywhere, and it's hitting the stumps, it's out? Is that honestly what he's saying? Because that's the stupidest thing I've heard in lockdown. And I heard a man suggest drinking bleach will cure the virus.

There's nothing wrong with the law. There's nothing wrong with cricket. If there is anything, it's the state of pitches which can easily be redressed.

 

[SteveNZ]

Current rule is fine as it is, however there needs to be a crackdown on batsmen who hide the bat behind their leg. This shouldn't be counted as playing a shot.

100%. More balls need to be exhibited in stating the obvious - that a batsman hasn't played a shot. Address that, and the LBW law has essentially zero wrong with it.

Unless we want to go down the rabbit hole that is the ridiculousness of umpire's call. But I think we've done that before.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was under the impression that many umpires already considered the old bat-tucked-behind-the-pads to be not offering a shot.

 

[SteveNZ]

I was under the impression that many umpires already considered the old bat-tucked-behind-the-pads to be not offering a shot.

Some do, not enough do.

He's lost it old Ian. That deadset is the stupidest thing I've heard in cricket, possibly forever.

Someone's bowling massive in-duckers to a right hander, let's say. It's seaming all over the show, swinging, the works. You're saying that if it hits the pad, and is going on to hit the stumps, that's out? Someone is going to be all out for 10 on a green one in early season UK or NZ conditions.

Then we can invite the old leg theory back in by operating from around the wicket to a right hander, stack guys in the right part of the field and not only can they find it hard to score, they'll probably be out more often than not.

The rule was correctly brought in because outside the off stump, you can get your bat outside your pad. You take stance naturally with your bat on the off side. On the leg side, you can't get your bat outside your pad, unless you have a double jointed shoulder blade.

And Chappell says it'll encourage an attacking method. Really? If you miss a sweep shot from a leggie turning it a bit, you're probably out. Then it brings into question the validity of ball tracking, all this sort of stuff. And it simplifies umpiring? Less frivolous DRS challenges? Err, no...the opposite.

The only thing he got right was saying it would speed up the game. Absolutely. One-day Tests would become a thing.

 

[SteveNZ]

He has to be taking the piss. Did we postpone April Fools' Day through this whole health thing?

 

[Spark]

Yeah taking away pitched outside leg would make for some truly dreadful cricket to watch, especially on turning pitches.