LBW law

[howitzer]

LBW is an inferior dismissal and now that we've rectified the issue caused by umpires not giving plumb LBWs not out on the front foot for spin, the next movement in the law should be towards less LBWs, not more.

The only thing I can really think of here is doing away with the striking the batter outside off not playing a shot law. This would also get rid of the 'was he or wasn't he playing a shot' arguments which happen from time to time. Not sure how it would actually play out though.

 

[Spark]

The only thing I can really think of here is doing away with the striking the batter outside off not playing a shot law. This would also get rid of the 'was he or wasn't he playing a shot' arguments which happen from time to time. Not sure how it would actually play out though.

In general I am resolutely opposed to anything that increases the prevalence of LBWs in the game tbh. We've reached the maximum reasonable amount and it should only be brought down from here.

It's simply not good for the game to have such a preponderance on dismissals based on a speculative decision which is as often or not dependent on outside technology for acceptable accuracy. Nor is it good in general that a single law can make or break an umpire's competency at international level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The only thing I can really think of here is doing away with the striking the batter outside off not playing a shot law. This would also get rid of the 'was he or wasn't he playing a shot' arguments which happen from time to time. Not sure how it would actually play out though.

My speculation would be more batsmen playing from the crease or mostly off the back foot

 

[howitzer]

In general I am resolutely opposed to anything that increases the prevalence of LBWs in the game tbh. We've reached the maximum reasonable amount and it should only be brought down from here.

It's simply not good for the game to have such a preponderance on dismissals based on a speculative decision which is as often or not dependent on outside technology for acceptable accuracy. Nor is it good in general that a single law can make or break an umpire's competency at international level.

I mean the one where it's out when it's out when you don't play a shot when it strikes you outside off could be changed to not out i.e. a nerf to lbw. Doing pad play outside off would still be risky with such a change as ensuring you get yourself outside the line isn't easy and likely fatal for your innings if you get it wrong. Not sure if the change would be too op for the batter but it doesn't feel like it would be. More just redressing the balance change DRS has caused, particularly wrt spinners.

 

[Spark]

I mean the one where it's out when it's out when you don't play a shot when it strikes you outside off could be changed to not out i.e. a nerf to lbw. Doing pad play outside off would still be risky with such a change as ensuring you get yourself outside the line isn't easy and likely fatal for your innings if you get it wrong. Not sure if the change would be too op for the batter but it doesn't feel like it would be. More just redressing the balance change DRS has caused, particularly wrt spinners.

Steve Smith likes this

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean the one where it's out when it's out when you don't play a shot when it strikes you outside off could be changed to not out i.e. a nerf to lbw. Doing pad play outside off would still be risky with such a change as ensuring you get yourself outside the line isn't easy and likely fatal for your innings if you get it wrong. Not sure if the change would be too op for the batter but it doesn't feel like it would be. More just redressing the balance change DRS has caused, particularly wrt spinners.

It would be a big change to bowlers that release from reasonably wide of the stumps, like most of them tbh. You could stand outside off, or just out of your crease, and leave virtually anything that isn't extremely full.

 

[Line and Length]

The vagaries of LBW remind me of my playing days. I was a right arm opening bowler who primarily moved the ball from off to leg. In one game I had 3 or 4 shouts that I thought were plumb. The umpire, a gentleman from Lancashire, turned down each appeal with, "Not out and you know it. The way you move ball you have to hit him outside off with no shot offered."
Returning for a second spell I sent down a 'nude' ball (nothing on it) as my warm up. The ball pitched almost a foot outside off and the batsman kicked it away with his bat raised above his head. "Well how was that?" I asked with a degree of sarcasm. "That's the one you wanted." said the ump as he raised his finger.
Over post game drinks my 'victim' said, "I can't really complain. I thought you had me a couple of times in your first spell."

 

[TheJediBrah]

The vagaries of LBW remind me of my playing days. I was a right arm opening bowler who primarily moved the ball from off to leg. In one game I had 3 or 4 shouts that I thought were plumb. The umpire, a gentleman from Lancashire, turned down each appeal with, "Not out and you know it. The way you move ball you have to hit him outside off with no shot offered."
Returning for a second spell I sent down a 'nude' ball (nothing on it) as my warm up. The ball pitched almost a foot outside off and the batsman kicked it away with his bat raised above his head. "Well how was that?" I asked with a degree of sarcasm. "That's the one you wanted." said the ump as he raised his finger.
Over post game drinks my 'victim' said, "I can't really complain. I thought you had me a couple of times in your first spell."

So umpires have been terrible for at least the last 90 years

 

[howitzer]

So umpires have been terrible for at least the last 90 years

You should've seen the time @Burgey got sawn off in 1852.

 

[Starfighter]

In general I am resolutely opposed to anything that increases the prevalence of LBWs in the game tbh. We've reached the maximum reasonable amount and it should only be brought down from here.

It's simply not good for the game to have such a preponderance on dismissals based on a speculative decision which is as often or not dependent on outside technology for acceptable accuracy. Nor is it good in general that a single law can make or break an umpire's competency at international level.

This is a strange bugbear of yours and I don't see where you are getting it from. LBW as a percentage of dismissals was 16.6% in the 90s, 17.1% in the 00s, 16.8% in the 10s and is 16.2% in the current decade, so it's not increasing.

The current law works well enough - certainly better than the alternatives. You can thank Australia and South Africa for that as England wanted a rule (only out pitching outside off if not playing a shot) that was close to the pre-1935 law, thanks to unenterprising batsmanship in the fifties and a big propaganda offensive by Sutcliffe and Wyatt, two of the worst pad-play offenders under the old law.

The main change which is needed is getting the shape and dimensions right for the projection and doing away with umpire's call on hitting, and deciding despite any uncertainty to do away with umpire's call on impact. Yes it does take up time but so do reviews for everything else. Like it or not that's penalty you pay for getting more decisions right.

I don't see how it 'makes or breaks an umpire's competence', after all Joel Wilson is still on the panel. If you actually think that then you may as well do away with LBW altogether, any version of the law will involve speculation even if not as often for the most restrictive version. LBW decision have been debated since the law was introduced.

 

[shortpitched713]

What does op mean?

Instead of just saying you like the current rule, please explain the rationale. Why does it matter where it pitches? Why does it matter if you were struck in line? If you could explain the rationale then maybe I would understand it and agree with you.

OP = overpowered

Balls moving across the body and away are harder to hit than balls coming into you ( the allowed lbw path where it is allowed to pitch outside the stumps ). Everyone would just switch to bowling around the wicket, if this rule change was made, and batting averages would plummet. There's not really a downside either, as you can still attack an outside off line and get outside edges from an around the wicket line. So that's why I wouldn't like it at all.

 

[Burgey]

You should've seen the time @Burgey got sawn off in 1852.

Sorry, who are you?

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is a strange bugbear of yours and I don't see where you are getting it from. LBW as a percentage of dismissals was 16.6% in the 90s, 17.1% in the 00s, 16.8% in the 10s and is 16.2% in the current decade, so it's not increasing.

The current law works well enough - certainly better than the alternatives. You can thank Australia and South Africa for that as England wanted a rule (only out pitching outside off if not playing a shot) that was close to the pre-1935 law, thanks to unenterprising batsmanship in the fifties and a big propaganda offensive by Sutcliffe and Wyatt, two of the worst pad-play offenders under the old law.

The main change which is needed is getting the shape and dimensions right for the projection and doing away with umpire's call on hitting, and deciding despite any uncertainty to do away with umpire's call on impact. Yes it does take up time but so do reviews for everything else. Like it or not that's penalty you pay for getting more decisions right.

I don't see how it 'makes or breaks an umpire's competence', after all Joel Wilson is still on the panel. If you actually think that then you may as well do away with LBW altogether, any version of the law will involve speculation even if not as often for the most restrictive version. LBW decision have been debated since the law was introduced.

And 95% of those LBWs up until the early 2000s occured in the subcontinent when visiting teams were sent packing if they got hit on the pad by a stray ball during warm ups.

 

[josephina]

It's simply not good for the game to have such a preponderance on dismissals based on a speculative decision which is as often or not dependent on outside technology for acceptable accuracy. Nor is it good in general that a single law can make or break an umpire's competency at international level.

You think it would be better if a batter could just stand in front of the stumps to block balls with immunity?

 

[josephina]

The only thing I can really think of here is doing away with the striking the batter outside off not playing a shot law. This would also get rid of the 'was he or wasn't he playing a shot' arguments which happen from time to time. Not sure how it would actually play out though.

What is the logic of this rule apart from encouraging batters to play a stroke. If this rule were abolished, I could hardly believe batters are going to pad up to balls outside off thinking they are hit outside the line.

 

[howitzer]

What is the logic of this rule apart from encouraging batters to play a stroke. If this rule were abolished, I could hardly believe batters are going to pad up to balls outside off thinking they are hit outside the line.

I was kind of playing devil's advocate there. I actually believe the lbw law is fine as it is.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I was kind of playing devil's advocate there. I actually believe the lbw law is fine as it is.

I mean, if you just change the rule so impact outside off is out; it makes lbw too op.

 

[josephina]

I was kind of playing devil's advocate there. I actually believe the lbw law is fine as it is.

But what is the logic apart from encouraging batters to play a stroke?

 

[howitzer]

But what is the logic apart from encouraging batters to play a stroke?

On the outside leg stuff? That shouldn't be changed as it would make batting too difficult and bowling methods too samey and easy to execute.

 

[ataraxia]

What is the logic of this rule apart from encouraging batters to play a stroke. If this rule were abolished, I could hardly believe batters are going to pad up to balls outside off thinking they are hit outside the line.

Before this was a rule, this was strategy.