Ian Chappell's proposed changed to the lbw law

[Starfighter]

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

Not from what I've seen.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Around the wicket pitching outside leg and hitting the stumps would seriously become the new corridor. Easy to defend runs against ... Wagner would reach 1000 test wickets in a year or two if NZ played enough tests.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

I wouldn't mind hitting outside the line being out tbh. Sure it would change the way you thrust your pad out at a ball pitching outside off but it's not insane.

As I said earlier though, pitching outside leg can't be out. Would destroy the game as we know it

 

[Burgey]

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

Yerrr but Murrli wud avrge 8.3 derka derk.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yerrr but Murrli wud avrge 8.3 derka derk.

I know you're taking the piss but he probably would tbh. Imagine being a lefty facing him bowling over the wicket into the rough outside leg on a doctored Galle dustbowl. He'd get a wicket every 3 or 4 balls.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

You don't get to be called Jimmy Padams for no reasons as such...
Great endeavor.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I have no problem with moving impact considerations entirely.

 

[Bolo.]

I am on team TJB. However, pitching outside leg would be too big an advantage to the bowlers (the quicks actually, nk
not the leggies specifically).

The idea of quicks bowling an entire spell of leg stump yorkers to a 2/7 field is frankly revolting.

But I really like the idea on the off. Why does it matter if a bat has played a shot?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The idea of quicks bowling an entire spell of leg stump yorkers to a 2/7 field is frankly revolting.

It's hard to bowl a yorker.
I'd say 14% of a spell are yorkers?

 

[SteveNZ]

I wouldn't mind hitting outside the line being out tbh. Sure it would change the way you thrust your pad out at a ball pitching outside off but it's not insane.

As I said earlier though, pitching outside leg can't be out. Would destroy the game as we know it

When playing a shot? I just think that's addressing the imbalance (if we're suggesting there is one) way too much.

Chris Martin would be tempted to sell his mini supermarket in Palmerston North and make a comeback. His big bending in-swingers (to RHers) would demand guys get bat on it or they were toast.

It might bring back swing bowling, which I'd be a massive fan of. But nah, I just think it'd lead to a veritable **** storm of lbws, appeals, DRS decisions and general **** aroundery. Plus mega low scores on dodgy pitches, and even sub-par scores on good wickets. I still think there's a place for a good piece of footwork to eliminate the possibility of being out lbw. And I'm a bowler.

 

[SteveNZ]

I know you're taking the piss but he probably would tbh. Imagine being a lefty facing him bowling over the wicket into the rough outside leg on a doctored Galle dustbowl. He'd get a wicket every 3 or 4 balls.

Agreed. At the height of his powers, would you back Murali to produce a ball to hit the pads and the stumps? I would.

As per my last post, I guess it might encourage big spinners and swingers of the ball. But at what cost? Batting, I reckon.

 

[Starfighter]

When playing a shot? I just think that's addressing the imbalance (if we're suggesting there is one) way too much.

Chris Martin would be tempted to sell his mini supermarket in Palmerston North and make a comeback. His big bending in-swingers (to RHers) would demand guys get bat on it or they were toast.

It might bring back swing bowling, which I'd be a massive fan of. But nah, I just think it'd lead to a veritable **** storm of lbws, appeals, DRS decisions and general **** aroundery. Plus mega low scores on dodgy pitches, and even sub-par scores on good wickets. I still think there's a place for a good piece of footwork to eliminate the possibility of being out lbw. And I'm a bowler.

If you want to bring back swing bowling, use the 2018-era Dukes balls.

 

[SteveNZ]

If you want to bring back swing bowling, use the 2018-era Dukes balls.

I am the founder and CEO of the 'use Dukes in international cricket' movement.

I've bowled with them twice and honestly it's the closest to God I've ever been.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I still think there's a place for a good piece of footwork to eliminate the possibility of being out lbw. And I'm a bowler.

That's funny, I'm a batsman and I wouldn't be upset at all. Always struck me as a bit strange that you can be completely beaten by the bowler, hit on the pad, and the ball be hitting the stumps but you're not out just because you stuck your pad a but outside the line of the stumps.

Agreed. At the height of his powers, would you back Murali to produce a ball to hit the pads and the stumps? I would.

As per my last post, I guess it might encourage big spinners and swingers of the ball. But at what cost? Batting, I reckon.

not even just the extra lbws you would get, but it would mean the batsman would have to play at everything and the number of catches at slip and in close would sky-rocket

 

[SteveNZ]

That's funny, I'm a batsman and I wouldn't be upset at all. Always struck me as a bit strange that you can be completely beaten by the bowler, hit on the pad, and the ball be hitting the stumps but you're not out just because you stuck your pad a but outside the line of the stumps.



not even just the extra lbws you would get, but it would mean the batsman would have to play at everything and the number of catches at slip and in close would sky-rocket

I guess the thing is - what if you've got a guy who's bowling massive off breaks, on a dead but ragging pitch, and you make a big stride and get hit let's say on 6th or 7th stump. Not out (because how could it be out, based on doubt), it's at a crucial part of the game and DRS says it's hitting. That would feel abysmal. So I guess the thing is, yeah if you get hit marginally on off stump, I hear you. But how do you legislate between getting just outside and miles outside? Because one might be OK but the other will just feel rank.

And yeah, that nicking scenario is definitely another permutation of it.

I thought Ian Chappell was, cantankerous as he is, a reasonable mind. But he's lost it. This is the sort of thing that even Ian Healy would cast off as nonsensical. I still can't get over how stupid it is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I put the blame on the media who are giving his comments the undue attention, probably knowing full well it will create a stir. Leave the poor bloke alone.

 

[honestbharani]

I assume the idea of the intent of playing a shot was because of how much swing or spin can beat a batsman when the ball pitches outside the off stump. Basically, the onus is on the batsman to not miss the ball if the ball is pitching in line with the stumps but if it is coming from way outside off with huge spin like Murali, then you need a bit of help as a batsman to not be out LBW basically every ball. I think the LBW laws are fine as they are.

 

[Line and Length]

I put the blame on the media who are giving his comments the undue attention, probably knowing full well it will create a stir. Leave the poor bloke alone.

I can't agree with the "poor bloke" tag. Chappell knows exactly what he's doing when he writes for the media and when he is commentating. It's all about thriving on controversy and attention. He's yesterday's man.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can't agree with the "poor bloke" tag. Chappell knows exactly what he's doing when he writes for the media and when he is commentating. It's all about thriving on controversy and attention. He's yesterday's man.

That's the thing, I'm not convinced that he does anymore. I doubt he's thinking as clearly as he used to.

 

[Gnske]

I don't get it, the balance in Tests is as good as I can remember the last decade.

Chappelli is the epitome of the 'back in my day' old coot.