THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?

[BoyBrumby]

Do they?!

Now I may've imagined it, but thought there was a slight amendment to the rules after Ash Giles's 30-odd overs pitched outside Sachin's leg-stump in one test during our last tour.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Now I may've imagined it, but thought there was a slight amendment to the rules after Ash Giles's 30-odd overs pitched outside Sachin's leg-stump in one test during our last tour.

Is it egotistical to quote your own posts?

Anyway, I was having a quick surf (as you do) & found this article. Glad I didn't dream it!

http://specials.rediff.com/cricket/2002/mar/20icc.htm

 

[marc71178]

AFAIK that rule only applies if the ball doesn't turn onto the stumps.

Either way it does to me seem a bit of a strange rule.

 

[SJS]

AFAIK that rule only applies if the ball doesn't turn onto the stumps.

.

Yes you are right. If Warne kept bowling Giles line (to Tendulkar) but turned it as his leg breaks do, it he would not be warned for negative tactics, I believe.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes you are right. If Warne kept bowling Giles line (to Tendulkar) but turned it as his leg breaks do, it he would not be warned for negative tactics, I believe.

That's true. & with my proposed change he'd have a chance of LBWs too! It would certainly discourage the batter to use his pads. Which I think means less negative play.

However I'm not detecting a big groundswell of support for my change, so think I'll admit defeat.

As the immortal Kenny Rogers sang,

"Know when to walk away & know when to run"

 

[SJS]

However I'm not detecting a big groundswell of support for my change, so think I'll admit defeat.

As the immortal Kenny Rogers sang,

"Know when to walk away & know when to run"

100% support for those who walk

PS: I think this was a great discussion though.

 

[KennyD]

Side-on bowling actions are where your feet are parallel to the popping crease.. do you mean that your body's pointing to pretty much first slip (to a RHB)? 'Cause that's gonna bugger your back big time!

   |                       |
   |________W__W__W________|
   |                       |
___|_______________________|___
           [BATSMAN]









__________________[FRONT]______
   |                       |
   |                       |
   |                       |
   |________W__W__W___[BACK]
   |                       |
   |                       |

yup thats exactly what i mean.

But then I dont bowl 20 overs an innings, so Im not worried about my back. Just the old 5 over stint for me. But i do know i spin it a lot, and im happy with it. A lot of coaches have however, one being Malcomn Franke who was a shield player bowling leggies for queensland in the 70's I believe, reckon a more front on action and run up is perhaps better, and i do agree, it lends more accuracy and can give more overspin on the ball, but me,I just like to rip it with as much sidespin as possible, from side on. I think you can concieve that my bowling isnt the most accurate or economical, but my strike rates not bad

 

[SJS]

yup thats exactly what i mean.

But then I dont bowl 20 overs an innings, so Im not worried about my back. Just the old 5 over stint for me. But i do know i spin it a lot, and im happy with it. A lot of coaches have however, one being Malcomn Franke who was a shield player bowling leggies for queensland in the 70's I believe, reckon a more front on action and run up is perhaps better, and i do agree, it lends more accuracy and can give more overspin on the ball, but me,I just like to rip it with as much sidespin as possible, from side on. I think you can concieve that my bowling isnt the most accurate or economical, but my strike rates not bad

You can reduce some strain by bowling with a more round arm action. If you are tall it wouldnt cause a problem with the flight to. But its a great help in reducing the strain on the shoulder. A bit of a problem controlling the direction of googlies , sometimes, though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bit of a thread dig, but I read an article by Mike Selvey in yesterday's Guardian wherein he proposes a rather radical change to the LBW law: to allow leg befores when the ball has taken the edge! As an old seamer he possibly has a vested interest (fast bowler's union & all that), but I wonder what everyone thinks? FWIW I'm instinctively anti (IIRC this was trialled in an English FC summer before WW2 & then abandoned). He's actually proposing it tho to help umpires &, in fairness, it would be one less thing for them to have to keep an eye out for.

He also suggests no catches allowed from the glove & a return to the back-foot no-ball rule. Radical stuff!

Selvey wrote:

In my opinion, we can eliminate some controversies by taking catches from the glove out of the equation (I have never seen the logic in the glove being viewed as part of the bat) and allowing lbws from the edge provided they still fulfil the other criteria (the bowler has beaten the inside of the bat as comprehensively as if he had taken the outside edge). Let technology be used for line calls alone and let's have the return of the back-foot no-ball rule, to eliminate problems with parallax and allow more time to focus on the business end of the pitch.

Full article here:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1596263,00.html

 

[Adamc]

I don't see how the umpires can be expected to adjudicate LBWs when the ball has hit the edge. If a batsman inside-edges it just before it goes on to the pad, it's virtually impossible for the umpire to know exactly what the angle of deflection was (hence know where the ball would have gone had the pad not intervened). This would be especially difficult to judge when the batsman bottom-edges a sweep shot off a spinner, as the batsman's bat/arms usually obscure the umpire's view.

I think the ICC should have the power to make retrospective changes to the law and disallow catches off the glove, thereby overturning Edgbaston and giving the Ashes back to Australia. (j/k, before anyone attempts to shred my argument to bits.)

 

[Dark Hunter]

He has a fair point there, If the bowler has worked hard and beaten the inside of the bat enough, like an outside edge to slip, then he does sort of deserve a wicket. I don't think it should be changed, but if they do, they need to be careful on how they implement it. It should only be off edges where the flight of the ball hasn't been messed up much, otherwise you could have a bottom edge for a hookshot, going on to pad and being given. That does seem a radical sort of dismisal, but it could be succesfully appealed for if the rule is implemented wrongly.

 

[open365]

^being caught of the glove makes sense.

lets say a bowler like steve harmison who gets extra bounce,part of his armoury would be taken away.

i like the back foot no ball rule,i reckon it would encourage faster bowling and thts good for the game.

the edge rule is stupid.

 

[Burpey]

Exactly. The umpire cannot determine the angle of deflection off the bat. What a ridculous suggestion.

 

[honestbharani]

I am all for the change. So many times we see guys like Kallis play against the spinners and just pretend to play a defensive shot with his foot outside the off stump... This would be a great rule. Although, it might spell the end of the heroics of a certain "walking front foot defence".