If you could change one law/rule in Test cricket?

[OverratedSanity]

Leg byes on the other hand are down to what? Certainly not bad fielding or field positioning. Maybe a case for leg byes through bad bowling down the leg but if it’s that bad a ball then the batsman should be able to put it away anyways. Why punish the fielding team and reward the batting team for failing to put away a bad ball (assuming it’s a bad ball in the first place).

Why exactly are we getting into the quality of the ball/shot? Totally irrelevant afaic. Might as well say Alastair cook scored 0 runs his entire career. If the fielding team fails to stop the batsmen from running across, fair enough to allow runs to be awarded it's that simple. Also it's not as if they're free runs? They can still be runout and often are because byes and leg byes are often those where the ball hasn't travelled that far . You're assuming the fielding team is entirely out of the game there when they aren't. The batsmen should always be allowed to run for whatever reason, if they're dumb enough to get themselves run out fair enough.

And the biggest problem as with the pitched outside lbw idea is that this will lead to situations where if the bowling team is looking to just contain runs they'll just bowl a negative line into the body from round the wicket knowing leg byes won't cost you anything . You underestimate how hard it is to actually get bat on those at times. It'll lead to terrible boring cricket.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

And the biggest problem as with the pitched outside lbw idea is that this will lead to situations where if the bowling team is looking to just contain runs they'll just bowl a negative line into the body from round the wicket knowing leg byes won't cost you anything.

Yeah true, imagine if teams did this.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah true, imagine if teams did this.

They'd do it way more muppet.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Lol no they wouldn't

 

[TheJediBrah]

No bowler has ever bowled a certain way, or avoided bowling a certain way, because they're worried about leg byes.

 

[Daemon]

And the biggest problem as with the pitched outside lbw idea is that this will lead to situations where if the bowling team is looking to just contain runs they'll just bowl a negative line into the body from round the wicket knowing leg byes won't cost you anything . You underestimate how hard it is to actually get bat on those at times. It'll lead to terrible boring cricket.

Haha this would 100% not happen. Leg byes are not some sort of colossal dam holding back a flood of negative bowling.

The rest of your post we can agree to disagree. There’s a line you have to draw somewhere when it comes to rewarding good/bad play.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Haha this would 100% not happen. Leg byes are not some sort of colossal dam holding back a flood of negative bowling.

ODI middle over bowling would get even more boring if that was even possible. Get those part time darters in to fire it into the pads boys they cant run.

Targetting the pads will become a way bigger thing.

 

[Daemon]

ODI middle over bowling would get even more boring if that was even possible. Get those part time darters in to fire it into the pads boys they cant run.

Targetting the pads will become a way bigger thing.

They’ll be regularly deposited over deep square leg

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

ODI middle over bowling would get even more boring if that was even possible. Get those part time darters in to fire it into the pads boys they cant run.

Targetting the pads will become a way bigger thing.

Thread's about Test cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

ODI middle over bowling would get even more boring if that was even possible. Get those part time darters in to fire it into the pads boys they cant run.

Targetting the pads will become a way bigger thing.

No it wouldn't. If you take away leg side wides in ODIs maybe it would be

 

[Daemon]

OS take the L it’s all good. You know you’ve lost when you’re parroting cnerd’s views.

 

[OverratedSanity]

They’ll be regularly deposited over deep square leg

No? A leg spinner/SLA from round the wicket ripping it into your pads from a foot outside off is difficult to score off of. That's why teams do it in declaration situations. You'd just make these tactics more viable and even slower than they already are.

 

[Daemon]

No? A leg spinner/SLA from round the wicket ripping it into your pads from a foot outside off is difficult to score off of. That's why teams do it in declaration situations. You'd just make these tactics more viable and even slower than they already are.

It’s difficult to score off in Tests because of footmarks and very lenient wide lines.

In LOs some spinners/chuckers bowl on the pads successfully already, but I fail to see why this is a bad thing that must be limited (not that leg byes are stopping this strategy anyways, but lets assume they are). It’s not a risk free strategy by any means, especially if you’re a “part time darter”.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ok, so if leg byes arent allowed, say the ball hits the batsman's glove then into the ribcage and he sets off for a single, does the fielding side not try to run him out because they think its actually come off only the chest so he cant run? What if the batsman's not even sure if he got something on it (recent cricket with DRs has proved this) ? DOes he still try to run? Do we have to sit through a 5 minute third umpire decision of whether or not the run was valid because they're not sure if he got a bit of glove on it?

This sounds like a rubbish rule change to me which will make things even slower and more needlessly complex than they are. Batsmen can run, fielders can run them out, just keep it simple ffs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

OS take the L it’s all good. You know you’ve lost when you’re parroting cnerd’s views.

Mate you're on TJB's side here, I think I'm good.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Ok, so if leg byes arent allowed, say the ball hits the batsman's glove then into the ribcage and he sets off for a single, does the fielding side not try to run him out because they think its actually come off only the chest so he cant run? Do we have to sit through a 5 minute third umpire decision of whether or not the run was valid because they're not sure if he got a bit of glove on it?

You can still run, it's just that anything not off the bat/glove won't count towards the score.

 

[Daemon]

This sounds like a rubbish rule change to me which will make things even slower and more needlessly complex than they are.

This logic I can buy. The rest of what you argued is largely based on incorrect assumptions and/or extremely poor cricketing knowledge.

I know this because I played Grade A in Hamilton and was a premier cricketer for my club in Tauranga. Back in my day we used to train in the nets with no pads and practice hitting spinners out of the rough into the stands.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You can still run, it's just that anything not off the bat/glove won't count towards the score.

So you can be runout when the run you're attempting might not even add to the total? Lmao

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

In fact yeah I'd argue that it's fine to run in that situation even if you don't score anything, for example if you want to change ends to get a better batsman on strike.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The rest of what you argued is largely based on incorrect assumptions and/or extremely poor cricketing knowledge.

This but unironically