Ian Chappell's proposed changed to the lbw law

[SteveNZ]

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.

Honestly, on an overcast morning at Lord's early season with a Duke, I think 15 could fall in 7-8 overs. Our 26 would become a competitive total

And if you drum down deeper, this doesn't solve the issues of flat pitches anyway. If there's no movement, you're not going to create more dismissals anyway because even though the provisions for hitting outside have changed, no one's moving the ball enough to take advantage anyway. You're either hitting them in line or you aren't - unless bowlers then become funky with angles on the crease etc. So it's really only when there's something in the air or off the pitch that more opportunities will be created, and given that scenario the good bowlers will make it happen for themselves anyway. The low scoring games get lower, and the high scoring ones might marginally...but what will also happen is appeals go up, reviews go up, and general dissatisfaction with the power balance between bat and ball goes the other way. Which TV networks will not enjoy.

Keeps getting sillier the more I think of it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Honestly, on an overcast morning at Lord's early season with a Duke, I think 15 could fall in 7-8 overs. Our 26 would become a competitive total

And if you drum down deeper, this doesn't solve the issues of flat pitches anyway. If there's no movement, you're not going to create more dismissals anyway because even though the provisions for hitting outside have changed, no one's moving the ball enough to take advantage anyway. You're either hitting them in line or you aren't - unless bowlers then become funky with angles on the crease etc. So it's really only when there's something in the air or off the pitch that more opportunities will be created, and given that scenario the good bowlers will make it happen for themselves anyway. The low scoring games get lower, and the high scoring ones might marginally...but what will also happen is appeals go up, reviews go up, and general dissatisfaction with the power balance between bat and ball goes the other way. Which TV networks will not enjoy.

Keeps getting sillier the more I think of it.

That's not really accurate. There's always a significant enough angle for balls hitting the pads outside the line to be hitting the stumps quite often, even with no movement in the air.

 

[Line and Length]

That's not really accurate. There's always a significant enough angle for balls hitting the pads outside the line to be hitting the stumps quite often, even with no movement in the air.

Very true. Especially if bowlers are delivering from wide on the crease or, more significantly, from around the wicket.

 

[SteveNZ]

That's why I said change of angles, to cover what I'd said.

Then as a bowler, on a flat one, I'm going wide on the crease. I'm stacking the leg side, 7/2 with maybe a third man and a short mid off. Or maybe I might leave the leg side open, and if you want to play around your pad good luck - because if I hit you 2 feet outside off stump, even if you're forward, you could be out. Enjoy that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's why I said change of angles, to cover what I'd said.

You don't have to change angles though. Any bowlers standard bowling point will have a significant angle and a lot of balls hitting outside the line will be hitting the stumps, not just if they move wider of the crease. Unless maybe you're Lasith Malinga.

 

[SteveNZ]

You don't have to change angles though. Any bowlers standard bowling point will have a significant angle and a lot of balls hitting outside the line will be hitting the stumps, not just if they move wider of the crease. Unless maybe you're Lasith Malinga.

Point taken. Not every bowler's has a significant angle, but a lot of them.

This would never work and nor do I want it to, but Chappell could have advocated for anything hitting or clipping the stumps to be out. No such thing as stay with on field call or umpire's call margin. That would certainly put the frighteners up a few batsmen.

 

[marc71178]

Point taken. Not every bowler's has a significant angle, but a lot of them.

This would never work and nor do I want it to, but Chappell could have advocated for anything hitting or clipping the stumps to be out. No such thing as stay with on field call or umpire's call margin. That would certainly put the frighteners up a few batsmen.

Isn’t the whole point of umpire call and the graphic that the margin of error is such that they don’t know if it’s going to hit the stumps or not? The graphic is just adding a bit of drama to say it was close but we can’t be sure?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Point taken. Not every bowler's has a significant angle, but a lot of them.

This would never work and nor do I want it to, but Chappell could have advocated for anything hitting or clipping the stumps to be out. No such thing as stay with on field call or umpire's call margin. That would certainly put the frighteners up a few batsmen.

They all have an angle. No one bowls literally stump-to-stump. Malinga's the only one I can think of that might.

 

[honestbharani]

The angle has to be looked at in the context of the batsman's stance. While there maybe slight variations here and there, unless we are talking about bowlers who can deliver from various points on the bowling crease width, batsmen do get used to a certain delivery point in the crease for each bowler, which means their set up is very much ready to cover that particular angle. The number of bowler who can significantly alter their delivery points in the crease without losing much of their accuracy and other traits would be rather low, I would think.

 

[SteveNZ]

They all have an angle. No one bowls literally stump-to-stump. Malinga's the only one I can think of that might.

Cmon mate, you're sounding like my mrs. And I've been locked down with her for 40 days. I don't need another. SIGNIFICANT ANGLE!!! (the preceding message was delivered in jest).

 

[SteveNZ]

Isn’t the whole point of umpire call and the graphic that the margin of error is such that they don’t know if it’s going to hit the stumps or not? The graphic is just adding a bit of drama to say it was close but we can’t be sure?

Yeah it's to do with the level of accuracy DRS is able to produce, right? That's not my point, more so that Chappell could have advocated for anything shown to be hitting or clipping being out, as opposed to the lunacy he came up with. No one wants to hear me wind and piss on about how stupid I think umpire's call is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Cmon mate, you're sounding like my mrs. And I've been locked down with her for 40 days. I don't need another. SIGNIFICANT ANGLE!!! (the preceding message was delivered in jest).

sorry m8 I'll let it go

The angle has to be looked at in the context of the batsman's stance. While there maybe slight variations here and there, unless we are talking about bowlers who can deliver from various points on the bowling crease width, batsmen do get used to a certain delivery point in the crease for each bowler, which means their set up is very much ready to cover that particular angle. The number of bowler who can significantly alter their delivery points in the crease without losing much of their accuracy and other traits would be rather low, I would think.

Not really relevant to what we're talking about, but interesting nonetheless

Yeah it's to do with the level of accuracy DRS is able to produce, right? That's not my point, more so that Chappell could have advocated for anything shown to be hitting or clipping being out, as opposed to the lunacy he came up with. No one wants to hear me wind and piss on about how stupid I think umpire's call is.

come on what else do we have to do. I love Umpire's Call and want to marry it. Discuss.

 

[Line and Length]

They all have an angle. No one bowls literally stump-to-stump. Malinga's the only one I can think of that might.

Terry Alderman used to, with movement of the pitch.

 

[honestbharani]

Not really relevant to what we're talking about, but interesting nonetheless



.

sure.

 

[Bijed]

Regardless of how much of a difference removing the impact otuside off rule may or may not actually make, I do like how it rewards an element of good batsmanship (i.e. proactive footwork) so for that reason it should definitely stay imo

 

[SteveNZ]

Regardless of how much of a difference removing the impact otuside off rule may or may not actually make, I do like how it rewards an element of good batsmanship (i.e. proactive footwork) so for that reason it should definitely stay imo

100% agreed

 

[TheJediBrah]

sure.

yeah I was lying, it wasn't interesting

 

[SteveNZ]

come on what else do we have to do. I love Umpire's Call and want to marry it. Discuss.

Umpire's call is designed to save the feelings of the little petals in white hats.

Shall I expand? The ludicrous nature of saying technology is best, but even though it's best we'll listen to what the umpires have to say too, is just beyond comprehension for me. DRS gets the use of technology, of time, of emotion removed, of home town bias ignored, multiple angles, so on...but in some cases the split second decision of a guy with myriad influences on his viewpoint gets as much say as the technology does. It's just beyond stupid and no one has ever convinced me otherwise.

This sort of mentality resulted in the greatest umpiring **** up of all time, when Nigel Llong decided it would be easier to side with his mate than make a clear and obvious decision on a significant ****ing nick on Nathan Lyon's bat.

SIGNIFICANT!

You could change it tomorrow, make it if more than half the ball it's out, if it's less than half it ain't. Simple. Who gives a **** what some guy who's been standing out there for 4 and a half days and misses his dog at home thinks.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah can't really argue with that. Take away umpire's call though and it's a slippery slope to the point where we don't even need umpires out there at all.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't want it to seem like I think umpires have no place, I think they have a significant place. Significant. I just think the stuff that need to be automated, ie dismissals, should be. Wides, no balls, one short, condition of the ball, over the top sledging, all these things - they need humans to keep the authenticity of cricket. The DRS system can exist as it stands without any influence from the on-field umpire.

Umpire's call has a place in sports like rugby league where your footage can often not be conclusive (obscured bodies etc). But not when you are presented with all the information you need to make a decision.