Ian Chappell's proposed changed to the lbw law

[Spikey]

people seem to be reacting as if this is something Ian Chappell came up with yesterday and not something that's been talked about for 40 to 50 years

 

[TheJediBrah]

people seem to be reacting as if this is something Ian Chappell came up with yesterday and not something that's been talked about for 40 to 50 years

nah it's just how it was reported and the media attention it's had

 

[iPankajKhanna]

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.

Yes that's what Chappelli is saying. It completely bemuses me, especially because such a silly thing is coming from someone I have great regards for.

 

[Spikey]

....what media attention? from an australian pov, there's no mention of the article on the old Fairfax sites non on FoxSports, which is wild because FoxSports is so desperate for content they'll take anything right now (and chances are, they will pick it up by Wednesday). the Australian Associated Press hasn't written about it. Reuters and AP hasn't either, so it's not like it's somehow ended up being reported in hundreds of papers across the world. From what I can see on Google News, so far it's been picked up by a couple of Indian publications (i have no idea of their popularity), and, strangely, The Times (where it's behind the paywall). I'm not sure how this is the media's fault...even allowing for how everything is the media's fault in your eyes.

Chappell 'wrote' a column for Cricinfo as he has every Sunday for years. And now we're discussing it in a way that seems very odd to me because this gets thrown up every few years and we're reacting like this is the first time this idea has ever been suggested or something. Of course, the real issue with Chappell's column is the fact that he hasn't countered any of the arguments that have been put forward every other time this idea gets floated. But the media isn't somehow to blame for that

 

[Burgey]

I think Chappelli has the mix about right here.

 

[Spikey]

anyway let's just close this thread and read the thread from 16 years ago instead because it has much better posters : http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/10158-lbw-rule-should-modified.html

 

[Gnske]

anyway let's just close this thread and read the thread from 16 years ago instead because it has much better posters : http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/10158-lbw-rule-should-modified.html

I'm not going to trust a thread created when the game was at its all time low.

 

[morgieb]

people seem to be reacting as if this is something Ian Chappell came up with yesterday and not something that's been talked about for 40 to 50 years

It's right up there with the whole "change the front-foot no ball" rule.

 

[TheJediBrah]

....what media attention?

It's been front page of cricinfo all day. Can't speak for anyone else but that's pretty much the only place I see cricket news and articles

anyway let's just close this thread and read the thread from 16 years ago instead because it has much better posters : http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/10158-lbw-rule-should-modified.html

no one's pretending that this is a radical new idea, no need to be touchy about it. Things like this will be discussed often and repeatedly. That's life.

 

[cnerd123]

This is being discussed in a WhatsApp group that I'm in right now

The number of people in favour of this disturbs me.

 

[Spikey]

It's been front page of cricinfo all day. Can't speak for anyone else but that's pretty much the only place I see cricket news and article.

........because he wrote the bloody article for Cricinfo! jesus christ son

 

[Spikey]

anyway, fun fact time: the Sheffield shield tried a rule in the early 80s which allowed for balls pitching outside leg to be given out LBW. the Sheffield shield was not, to my knowledge, destroyed

i haven't been able to find the law as written, perhaps it's in a Wisden from that era, but the trick was you had to be bowling over the wicket. i think there was some kind of clause in the rule that meant it didn't apply for a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket to a left handed batman, the bowler would have had to go around the wicket for the rule to apply, which of course they wouldn't.

 

[Shady Slim]

fully endorse getting rid of impact outside off as TJB's said, felt it was always a silly rule

but first comes moving boundary ropes back to where they should be. i get so irrationally mad when i see a T20 six landing just outside the boundary rope when the rope's a solid twenty yards in from the fence

 

[TheJediBrah]

anyway, fun fact time: the Sheffield shield tried a rule in the early 80s which allowed for balls pitching outside leg to be given out LBW. the Sheffield shield was not, to my knowledge, destroyed

i haven't been able to find the law as written, perhaps it's in a Wisden from that era, but the trick was you had to be bowling over the wicket. i think there was some kind of clause in the rule that meant it didn't apply for a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket to a left handed batman, the bowler would have had to go around the wicket for the rule to apply, which of course they wouldn't.

Definitely a fun fact, but as I'm sure is obivous to all of us, not really the same thing. "Pitching outside leg can be out, but not 99% of times when the ball would pitch outside leg" kind of defeats the purpose and is not really relevant to Chappell's suggestion.

Why would that "destroy" the Sheffield Shield. It's barely even changing the rules. Dumb comment.

 

[Spikey]

i thought you'd be interested. you're the one who said "pitching outside leg can't be out. Would destroy the game as we know it". The media really shouldn't have reported that one. you should be very upset with them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

i thought you'd be interested. you're the one who said "pitching outside leg can't be out. Would destroy the game as we know it". The media really shouldn't have reported that one. you should be very upset with them.

Don't get me wrong I was definitely interested to hear the fun fact. Just reiterating that the example you've given is not even remotely similar to the example we're using in this thread and that I claimed would "destroy the game as we know it", but for some reason you're implying that it is.

Cutting out around the wicket/left-arm over the wicket etc. from the lbws outside leg being allowed means that you've barely changed anything. Basically you're just allowing a leg-spinner who turns the ball a lot to very occasionally be able to get an lbw that they couldn't before.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What do the guys at ICC think about this?
Have they made a reaction to this yet?

 

[SteveNZ]

anyway, fun fact time: the Sheffield shield tried a rule in the early 80s which allowed for balls pitching outside leg to be given out LBW. the Sheffield shield was not, to my knowledge, destroyed

i haven't been able to find the law as written, perhaps it's in a Wisden from that era, but the trick was you had to be bowling over the wicket. i think there was some kind of clause in the rule that meant it didn't apply for a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket to a left handed batman, the bowler would have had to go around the wicket for the rule to apply, which of course they wouldn't.

Presumably that was pitching outside leg but hitting in line?

 

[SteveNZ]

people seem to be reacting as if this is something Ian Chappell came up with yesterday and not something that's been talked about for 40 to 50 years

I've never heard it, and I ingest all the cricket media I possibly can.

Anyhoo, incredibly awful idea, no one will listen, Chappelli has lost it, back on with life. Let's change the DRS umpire's call first then leave the rest how it is - ie unbroken.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Just read the cricinfo article. He writes it will make "4 day tests a more viable proposition". Talk about understatement. The only good thing about changing the LBW rule like that is there is more chance of someone "beating" NZ's 26 all out. Imagine if it was hooping under lights in a pink ball test. 15 wickets could fall in a session.