THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?

[SJS]

It is now well over 60 years since the LBW rule was last ammended. It has since remained unchanged. There has always been a debate that it should be modified. Amongst those who suggest that was the Don on whose (besides others including Larwood) the last change was made to declare a batsman out even if the ball pitched outside the off stump.

It was argued then, and the arguement holds, that batsmen were offering the pad too often in defense AND leg theory was becoming popular since bowlers did not benefit from great bowling aimed at our just outside the off stump.

Bradman argued, then and throughout his life, that the law should have gone further and a batsman should be declared out EVEN if the point of contact was outside the off stump and he did offer a stroke.

This would

a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour which it was becoming
b) Reduce the inclination for negative (leg stump and outside) bowling.
c) Give boost to spinners
d) Make for more attractive cricket since batsmen would have to play more often

Opinions please ??

I have always been for it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Excellent topic for discussion!

I'd actually go further! If a ball pitches outside the leg-stump but strikes the batter in line with the stumps why not change the law to allow LBW decisions? If the ball pitches outside leg but seams or turns back to hit the stumps the batter is out, so why the rule about no leg-befores when the ball pitches outside leg?

I guess the counter argument is that this would encourage negative bowling, but the umpires have discretion to warn bowlers for excessively negative bowling, so why not give it a try?

 

[SJS]

Excellent topic for discussion!

I'd actually go further! If a ball pitches outside the leg-stump but strikes the batter in line with the stumps why not change the law to allow LBW decisions? If the ball pitches outside leg but seams or turns back to hit the stumps the batter is out, so why the rule about no leg-befores when the ball pitches outside leg?

I guess the counter argument is that this would encourage negative bowling, but the umpires have discretion to warn bowlers for excessively negative bowling, so why not give it a try?

Well you have yourself stated the major arguement against it. This is one discretion that would be most contentious.

I think it would be a good idea to start with the off side onan experimental basis and see what impact it has on the game, the balance between bat and ball etc. before deciding further.

It is genrally accepted that leg side bowling cramps up the batsman more and is more used for negative tactics. This has always been the case over the history of the game.

 

[FRAZ]

This would

a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour

I have no doubt in my mind that you are absolutely right here ......

 

[Deja moo]

Are there any rules as to how far from the stumps at the umpires end can the bowler bowl ?

 

[wpdavid]

It is now well over 60 years since the LBW rule was last ammended. It has since remained unchanged. There has always been a debate that it should be modified. Amongst those who suggest that was the Don on whose (besides others including Larwood) the last change was made to declare a batsman out even if the ball pitched outside the off stump.

It was argued then, and the arguement holds, that batsmen were offering the pad too often in defense AND leg theory was becoming popular since bowlers did not benefit from great bowling aimed at our just outside the off stump.

Bradman argued, then and throughout his life, that the law should have gone further and a batsman should be declared out EVEN if the point of contact was outside the off stump and he did offer a stroke.

This would

a) Tilt the balance a bit less in the batsman's favour which it was becoming
b) Reduce the inclination for negative (leg stump and outside) bowling.
c) Give boost to spinners
d) Make for more attractive cricket since batsmen would have to play more often

Opinions please ??

I have always been for it.

I think you're dead right on all counts - there's little argument for not giving an lbw when the ball has pitched outside off just because the batter has played a shot. In repsonse to subsequent messages, I wouldn't allow lbw's when the ball has pitched outside leg though.

 

[SJS]

Are there any rules as to how far from the stumps at the umpires end can the bowler bowl ?

Not as far as the straight line distance goes but if he is going to release the ball so far back that the umpire may not even realise he is about to bowl, I think he has to intimate to the umpire. The umpire may decide to stand at a different location and/or be able to watch if the batsman is ready etc.

Of course, at right angle to the line of the stumps, he is restricted by the return crease (or an imaginary extension thereof)

 

[SJS]

I think you're dead right on all counts - there's little argument for not giving an lbw when the ball has pitched outside off just because the batter has played a shot. In repsonse to subsequent messages, I wouldn't allow lbw's when the ball has pitched outside leg though.

...or pretended to play one ...

 

[KennyD]

perhaps this new rule could be implemented but id like to see it trialed first before making it standard

 

[SJS]

perhaps this new rule could be implemented but id like to see it trialed first before making it standard

Yes. Thats normally always done. Last time it went something like this :-

1. A trial run in 1935 in first class and second class county games.
2. Then in 1936 it was tried in all forms of the game.
3. In 1937 it became a law by unanimous vote.

 

[Deja moo]

Not as far as the straight line distance goes but if he is going to release the ball so far back that the umpire may not even realise he is about to bowl, I think he has to intimate to the umpire. The umpire may decide to stand at a different location and/or be able to watch if the batsman is ready etc.

Of course, at right angle to the line of the stumps, he is restricted by the return crease (or an imaginary extension thereof)

Yes , thats what I meant. For example, if there were no laws regarding that, we could see a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket, but maybe 10 feet to the left of the stumps at the umpires end . This would be unfair to the batsman (I think) due to the extreme angling in of the delivery .And if it pitched way outside off ( as it would in this case) , and hit the batsman putside off, but going on to hit the stumps , I think that would be a very unfair way for the batsman to be dismissed .

 

[SJS]

Yes , thats what I meant. For example, if there were no laws regarding that, we could see a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket, but maybe 10 feet to the left of the stumps at the umpires end . This would be unfair to the batsman (I think) due to the extreme angling in of the delivery .And if it pitched way outside off ( as it would in this case) , and hit the batsman putside off, but going on to hit the stumps , I think that would be a very unfair way for the batsman to be dismissed .

Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

PS : Incidentaly, there is nothing on which the square leg umpire can not , of his own accord, inform, advise, counsel his copunterpart at the bowliners end.

 

[SJS]

Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

And, of course, once forced to bowl within the return crease, the bowler would actually suffer rather than gain as far as the angle of delivery is concerned , the further he went back.

 

[age_master]

No

 

[Deja moo]

Yes of course. But you are not allowed to do that. The 'imaginary' extension of the return crease is unlimited in length and if a bowler tried to be 'smart' by bowling so far from behind as for the umpire not to be able to see him, the umpire could choose to stand equally far back.

PS : Incidentaly, there is nothing on which the square leg umpire can not , of his own accord, inform, advise, counsel his copunterpart at the bowliners end.

I think we are talking about different planes .


I gather that when you say ( look at bold part of quote) , you mean that the bowler might be bowling the same line ( ie; the line more or less parallel to the line connecting the two stumps at the opposite ends of the wicket) , but from further back ( ie 23 or 24 or more yards from the batsman instead of the normal 22)

What I meant was , since you say that the front line of the crease is unlimited in length , couldnt the bowler try bowling from more than say 10 feet to the left hand side of the umpire standing at his normal position behind the stumps ?

If the bowler was allowed lbws from that angle, I think it would be very unfair to the batsman .

 

[BoyBrumby]

It is genrally accepted that leg side bowling cramps up the batsman more and is more used for negative tactics. This has always been the case over the history of the game.

To play devil's advocate, would you call Larwood & Voce negative bowlers? Both known to pitch the ball outside leg on the odd occasion!

Seriously though, it strikes me as a bit arbitrary that if a ball pitches a quarter of an inch outside leg there's no way a batter can be given out. Warne's "ball of the century" pitched several inches outside leg. If Gatt had got a pad in the way he wouldn't have been out. It strikes me as unfair that such a ball could've easily brought no reward.

 

[SJS]

I think we are talking about different planes .


I gather that when you say ( look at bold part of quote) , you mean that the bowler might be bowling the same line ( ie; the line more or less parallel to the line connecting the two stumps at the opposite ends of the wicket) , but from further back ( ie 23 or 24 or more yards from the batsman instead of the normal 22)

What I meant was , since you say that the front line of the crease is unlimited in length , couldnt the bowler try bowling from more than say 10 feet to the left hand side of the umpire standing at his normal position behind the stumps ?

If the bowler was allowed lbws from that angle, I think it would be very unfair to the batsman .

The RETUN CREASE is not the front line.

Its the line at right angle to it (and parallel to the lay of the wicket) and extends from the bowling crease backwards away from the wicket. The bowler is required to bowl from within the return crease and the stumps. If he even touches the return crease with his rear foot in the bowling stride, it is a no ball. Thus there is no way a bowler can gain an advatage of a 'bigger' angle by bowling from further away.

 

[Deja moo]

Well, the objection against legside lbws is that it involves balls being pitched in the blind spot of the batter .

 

[SJS]

5. Fair delivery – the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(i) the bowler's back foot must land within and not touching the return crease.
(ii) the bowler's front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised, behind the popping crease.
If the umpire at the bowler's end is not satisfied that both these conditions have been met, he shall call and signal No ball.

http://www.lords.org/cricket/lw_0000000050.asp

 

[SJS]

To play devil's advocate, would you call Larwood & Voce negative bowlers? Both known to pitch the ball outside leg on the odd occasion!

Seriously though, it strikes me as a bit arbitrary that if a ball pitches a quarter of an inch outside leg there's no way a batter can be given out. Warne's "ball of the century" pitched several inches outside leg. If Gatt had got a pad in the way he wouldn't have been out. It strikes me as unfair that such a ball could've easily brought no reward.

It isnt really if you study batsmanship.

Physically it is possible (and much easier) to play a ball pitched on or outside the of stump to a larger number of directions than a ball pitchd outside the legstump. This is a fact and any batsman can vouch for it. For most shots you need to be able to free your arms and it is that much more difficult if the ball is aimed at your legs. If it is outside them, it is extremely inconvinient and very difficult to 'consistently be able to hit it in any direction other than the leg side. Where as a ball on the off stump or outside involves much lesser risk and more freedom to be played in a wider radial.

Thus by bowling on and outside the leg stump and with a field set accordingly, it is easier to bottle up a batsman with what we may term 'leg theory' than with its counter part , the 'off theory'

To stop bowlers from resorting to this negative line and for the game to become les of a spectacle , imagine how many strokes would just vanish from the game, bowlers are discouraged from resorting to this line of attack.

It is not arbitrary and is one of the most discussed laws in the game and every time, it has been debated, the majority has voted for restricting leg side attack and having the law as it is for deliveries pitching outside the leg stump.