These are all terrible ideas, some more than others. Last one is the worst
Not the first one - limited overs over Tests?
Please argue the case for the current law. Do you really believe batters will start padding up to balls striking them just outside off knowing they could be out LBW. Are balls pitched outside leg really negative? Warne's most celebrated wickets were pitched outside leg. Was that negative bowling? Was it boring?
I can happily, and easily make significant cases for the current law.
With what you're saying (unless I misunderstood) there would be no more rules about pitching in line, hitting in line or striking outside the line. So every ball, conceivably, that hits the pads and is hitting the stumps, is out? That's going to absolutely decimate the way our game looks. All of a sudden, batsmen are frightened to get in line, or even outside it. Leg spinners and left-arm orthodox become incredibly valuable to RHers, and vice versa for offies to LHers because it is harder to make contact outside your eye line leg side. The sweep shot completely becomes extinct, thus making batting in a lot of conditions a significant amount harder. The types of dismissals become less broad as bowlers target the stumps from different angles, less interested in having cordons, setting traps etc. Easier to play the numbers game with the pads.
I, and many others, completely disagree with that article above. The pitching outside leg rule, to me, is absolutely essential to ensure some level of parity between bat and ball. Do we really want to undergo a complete overhaul of batting technique? Why? That's not what will revolutionise the game, that's not what is threatening its existence.
And the fact that article includes this -
Even Hawk-Eye’s ball-tracking technology, which we like to tell ourselves is a faithful, infallible projection of truth, is really just a best guess. There’s nothing to say the ball wouldn’t have swung, or dipped, or been caught by a sudden gust of wind, before hitting the stumps - shows the writer really doesn't know what he's talking about and was made to write something by his editor, and didn't truly believe in it. There might be some big words in there and it seems all quite intellectual, but it's really a bit naff.
Potentially the law could be changed for reverse shots, but I can't see an argument for anything else.
