View Full Version : LBW - Pitched outside the leg stump
topjars
16 Dec 2001, 14:10
Just been watching Warney bowl around the wicket to McKenzie in particular; (and Boucher)
Before noddin off I thought Id get your opinion on this question...
"Should a batsman be given out even if the ball pitches outside the leg stump and hits his pads?"
Even cricket purists would have to agree if the ball is gonna hit the stumps the batsman should be out!
When I see a batsman pad up to a ball about to canon into his stumps its feeble defence (albeit within the laws of the game).
IMHO this rule should be dumped thereby offering the viewer and the paying public more shots for thier dollar:eek:
Originally posted by topjars
When I see a batsman pad up to a ball about to canon into his stumps its feeble defence (albeit within the laws of the game).
I believe the laws of the game state that if the batsman does not offer a shot, it is irrelevant where the ball pitched, provided it would have hit the stumps.
I agree that changing the law to "it would hit = out" would result in more shots, however it would also increase the amount of LBWs given. How much more entertaining is it seeing sides bowled out for 200 with 7 guys LBW? Not much, I wouldn't think.
Blues2001
16 Dec 2001, 16:05
Originally posted by Darky
I believe the laws of the game state that if the batsman does not offer a shot, it is irrelevant where the ball pitched, provided it would have hit the stumps.
No, if it pitches outside leg you can't be given out. Doesn't matter if you offer a shot or not. If it pitches outside off though, it's a different story, and if you don't offer a shot you could well be gone if it would probably hit.
Don't think the rule should be changed.
The Hippie
16 Dec 2001, 20:19
That's a curly one, topjars. I agree with what Darky said about sides being bowled out for 200-odd and 7 out LBW, what would happen is every bowler under the sun, especially spin bowlers, would straight away come round the wicket, and have a mostly leg side field to restrict scoring as well. It probably would turn into a bore-athon. Scoring would drop off and there would be more over-appealing than we already see.
IMO, I'd leave it as it is.
Pies rock
16 Dec 2001, 20:39
I've always thought the laws should be changed. Why does it matter if the ball pitches outside leg?? It also gives the left handed batsman an unfair advantage when facing the quicks (who mainly bowl right arm over).
The only rule in regards to offering a shot is if the ball hits outside the line of off-stump and the batsman plays a shot. He cannot be given out if the ball is hitting or not...
Originally posted by The Hippie
what would happen is every bowler under the sun, especially spin bowlers, would straight away come round the wicket
Offies wouldn't get much out of it, at least to right handers.
In my opinion the rule should be the same outside of leg as it is outside of off. What's the difference? The batsan has a bat for a reason. Let 'em use the bloody thing!
topjars
17 Dec 2001, 18:31
Originally posted by The Hippie
That's a curly one, topjars. I agree with what Darky said about sides being bowled out for 200-odd and 7 out LBW, what would happen is every bowler under the sun, especially spin bowlers, would straight away come round the wicket, and have a mostly leg side field to restrict scoring as well. It probably would turn into a bore-athon. Scoring would drop off and there would be more over-appealing than we already see.
IMO, I'd leave it as it is.
Fair enough.
I tend to agree with Dave in as far as if a ball pitches outside the line of leg AND the batsman DOESNT offer a shot AND the ball would hit the stumps ...he should be out
What are the chances of an Aussie victory tomorrow?
Think itll be over by tea:cool:
Oh and I nearly forgot...if you hit a square leg umpire with a pull shot like Ponting did today it should be 4 runs. At least a helmet cant jump out of the way:p
Seriously if you could be LBW to a ball pitching outside leg stump it would ruin the game as a spectacle.
All right arm bowlers would just bowl round the wicket & pitch up with a strong leg side field, run scoring would be tricky & I doubt whether batsman would be able to survive that long to make big scores.
London Dave
18 Dec 2001, 04:10
Which, Dipper, is exactly why the rule is framed as it is. Some of you may be too young to remember offies bowling darts around the wicket into a batsmans pads, with a pcked legside field. Rivetting stuff.
Originally posted by topjars
"Should a batsman be given out even if the ball pitches outside the leg stump and hits his pads?"
Totally agree. If they do not offer a shot and it looks like hitting the stumps, then it should be out.
Booze Hound
18 Dec 2001, 23:15
I must agree with Dipper.
Think it through people, it would kill the game.
Fat Red
19 Dec 2001, 07:57
Cricket has changed since then, I don't know that the off-spin situation would be such a problem. Anyway, as long as y0ou can't be out playing a shot, you should be OK.
I believe this was trialled in India last time we were there ;)
gPhonque
19 Dec 2001, 11:11
Anyone who thinks the rule should be changed has either:
a) Not thought about it properly
or
b) No idea about cricket
cheers.
topjars
19 Dec 2001, 16:53
Originally posted by DIPPER
Seriously if you could be LBW to a ball pitching outside leg stump it would ruin the game as a spectacle.
All right arm bowlers would just bowl round the wicket & pitch up with a strong leg side field, run scoring would be tricky & I doubt whether batsman would be able to survive that long to make big scores.
But hang on, isnt this what bowlers do now to a packed offside field?
Dont tell me the game suffers from 3 slips and a gully, point, cover, midoff and good line and length bowling.
Puts em under pressure to force the scoring with that thing called a BAT.
London Dave....Im old enough to remember how to use my feet to leg side bowling tactics
Fat Red
20 Dec 2001, 08:02
Originally posted by gPhonque
Anyone who thinks the rule should be changed has either:
a) Not thought about it properly
or
b) No idea about cricket
cheers.
Thanks for that logical argument:rolleyes:
I for one understand the arguments against, except for the magic ones that you have up your sleeve.
And I'm not old enough to remember the old rule, so I may be wrong.
But cricket coped quite well with the old rule for a long time.
gPhonque
20 Dec 2001, 09:17
Originally posted by Fat Red
Thanks for that logical argument:rolleyes:
I for one understand the arguments against, except for the magic ones that you have up your sleeve.
And I'm not old enough to remember the old rule, so I may be wrong.
But cricket coped quite well with the old rule for a long time.
Come on Fat Red - someone like Warne on the last day of a test match on a pitch like the one they just played on, would be damn near unstoppable with that rule. Just pitch it outside leg, put heaps of turn on it, and wait for an edge or bat/pad. He'd take 10 wickets every 2nd innings. He'd probably open the bowling too.
I think the little battles we get at the moment when Warne is coming around the wicket to the batsman, are what makes Test Cricket great. It's not an "instant" sport, yet people are determined to turn it into an "instant" sport.
Padding up to those balls can be a batsman's only defence sometimes.
I don't believe the batsman should ever be forced to use his bat in a test match if the ball pitches outside leg.
Someone said earlier that "the batsman has a bat so make him use it." The same could be said for a bowler - he's got stumps there - make him bowl at them.
He has the right to bowl outside leg - surely in a test match, the batsman should have the right to say "screw you - i'm padding that crap away."
Think about how test cricket is played. It's all about choice.
The bowler chooses his line & length etc. The batsman chooses whether to play a shot or not. FORCING him to hit (with his bat) balls that pitch outside leg takes one of his defensive choices away from him. Is this test cricket or one day cricket?
Originally posted by gPhonque
I don't believe the batsman should ever be forced to use his bat in a test match if the ball pitches outside leg.
Why?
Someone
Me!
said earlier that "the batsman has a bat so make him use it." The same could be said for a bowler - he's got stumps there - make him bowl at them.
Me scatches head. If a batsman is out LBW it's because his pad(s) have stopped the ball hitting the stumps. If the ball was going to hit the stumps then isn't that where the bowler has bowled at? Or are they only allowed to bowl in a dead straight line with no turn or seam? Why should a bowler have to put the ball where the batsman can hit it easily if the aim is to get him out?
He has the right to bowl outside leg - surely in a test match, the batsman should have the right to say "screw you - i'm padding that crap away."
Then why doesn't he have the right to do that outside of off as well? Where's the consistancy?
Dippers Donuts
20 Dec 2001, 09:59
I have to agree with the likes of gphonque on this one - leave the rule as it is.
Otherwise people like warney (and leg spinners in general) would bowl around the wicket, pitch the ball three foot outside leg stump (and pitch the ball into the bowlers footmarks to boot) all day every day. It would essentially be a version of bodyline, different intent perhaps but same result - it would kill the game.
I hate it when warne bowls around the wicket at the best of times, it is negative, unimaginative and is essentially relying on the pitch to produce the unplayable ball to get a wicket.
The rule is there to stop bowlers doing exactly that - change the rule and test matches in India, Sydney etc would last three days.
Change the rules and hell, as a former leggie myself I'll don the whites again and absolutely clean up!!
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
I have to agree with the likes of gphonque on this one - leave the rule as it is.
Otherwise people like warney (and leg spinners in general) would bowl around the wicket, pitch the ball three foot outside leg stump (and pitch the ball into the bowlers footmarks to boot) all day every day. It would essentially be a version of bodyline, different intent perhaps but same result - it would kill the game.
This is the same argument used by those who tried to stop the law being changed so that you could be out to a ball pitched outside off as well.
Dippers Donuts
20 Dec 2001, 10:33
Originally posted by Dave
This is the same argument used by those who tried to stop the law being changed so that you could be out to a ball pitched outside off as well.
I have no problem with the off stump LBW rule. An offie bowling over the wicket is a totally different scenario to a leggie bowling around the wicket into footmarks etc.
gPhonque
20 Dec 2001, 13:50
Originally posted by Dave
Then why doesn't he have the right to do that outside of off as well? Where's the consistancy?
Because off stump and leg stump are different Dave. It's a hell of a lot easier to hit a batsman on the legs pitching outside leg than it is hitting a batsman on the legs outside off. That goes for a fast bowler as well as a legspin bowler.
To hit a batsman on the pads pitching the ball outside off, it requires the batsman to step across in front of his stumps.
To hit him pitching outside leg is a lot easier since the legs are naturally in front of leg stump. (or outside legstump)
If you take away the right of the batsman to pad away balls from people like Warnie, then you're taking away one of main defensive rights of the batsman when facing those types of deliveries.
Dippers Donuts put it exactly right - it would become bodyline with a different intent, but exactly the same result.
Why would you WANT the rule changed anyway?
As i said earlier, i find those little battles quite exciting in test cricket. You know - Warnie bowling on the last day, around the wicket, always looking like he's going to get an edge or a bat-pad. I don't see what is so bad about a batsman using his pad a to defend. Especially in that kind of situation where the bowler is getting crazy amounts of turn by pitching it into the footmarks on the final day. It can be his only defence on occasions.
I'm talking TEST cricket by the way. One day cricket would be a different argument altogether. :)
What are your reasons behind bringing in such a rule?
To force a batsman to use his bat??
Why?
Test matches go for 5 days don't they? I don't understand what your reasons for changing the rule are. (one day cricket i could understand - although i'd still be against it purely because of the advantage it would give to leggies, or any other bowler coming around the wicket.)
Originally posted by gPhonque
....
Why would you WANT the rule changed anyway?
Because it pisses me off to see a batsman padding away, padding away padding awzzzzzzzz......
To force a batsman to use his bat??
Why?
Why not? That's what it's for isn't it? I take your point about the differences between off/leg wrt to where batsmen take block, but I think that it would be a dangerous ploy to bowl constantly outside of leg, particularly to someone who is strong off their pads.
Test matches go for 5 days don't they?
Quite often. They also quite often end in draws. Personally I think they ought to be played to a result regardless of how long it takes.
I don't understand what your reasons for changing the rule are. (one day cricket i could understand - although i'd still be against it purely because of the advantage it would give to leggies, or any other bowler coming around the wicket.)
IMO it would make the game a little more offensive (!!) if you get my drift.
At the end of the day I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it, it just puzzles me as to why so many people say leave it as it is WITHOUT giving their reasons. At least you have some ;)
This might be an overly simplistic view, but wouldn't the difference between legside and offside pitch be because in a batsman's normal upright stance, the bat is between the legs and the ball that pitches outisde off stump, whereas it is not between the legs and a ball that pitches outside leg stump.
It might be simplifying things too much, but it's the only reason I can see why the rule would be different for different sides of the batsman/wicket.
topjars
20 Dec 2001, 18:19
Originally posted by gPhonque
Someone said earlier that "the batsman has a bat so make him use it." The same could be said for a bowler - he's got stumps there - make him bowl at them.
You must have missed the very first post!!:mad:
Warne was bowling at the stumps
The way I look at it the bowler has the ball to try and knock the stumps down and the batsman a bat to stop him and that is what the game should be, a contest between bat and ball.
It will never change as the game has always and will always be slanted towards the batsman. IMHO
London Dave
20 Dec 2001, 18:48
I recall hearing a Richie Benaud explanation of the way the law was framed and why. Made perfect sense to me. It went along the lines some folks have suggested here. (Darky was one, tere were others). The big difference is the ability to hit the ball pitched outside off compared to outside leg. A batsman hasnt got as many shots/options outside leg, (not as some of you may suggest, because they cant 'dance', but it is the nature of the 'sideness' of the batsman, as Darky explained so succinctly)
If they changed the rule (and they never would), it would root the game, and if you can't see that, you don't seem to understand the game, imho.
If anyone should be in any doubt about the impact of a change in the laws they should watch TODAY'S play in the 3rd Test of India v England.
Ashley Giles the England left arm spinner bowled ball after ball going over the wicket outside leg stump to Tendulkar.Now this was without a rule that would have allowed him to get a wicket LBW & so he had little chance of getting a wicket bowling this way it was purely a tactic to shackle Tendulkar.
Now by most people's admission Tendulkar is the best batsman in the world & he was really struggling to score against this tactic, the crowd was getting highly p1ssed off & the English commentators weren't exactly thrilled.It was BORING for everyone-even I would suggest Ashley Giles himself.Now imagine that the bowler could get LBW as well then there'd be no incentive to do anything else but bowl this way it would KILL the game nothing more & nothing less.If Tendulkar could have scored even with some above average risk don't you think he would have tried, he's hardly the sort of guy who wants to just stay around doing nothing.
To those that compare it with bowling outside off stump to a packed offside filed, England did this in the last Test, they bowled to an 8-1 offside field & the bowlers pitched it about 6 inches outside off stump.So what happens?Tendulkar is becalmed in the session before lunch & scores pretty slowly, so they attempt the same thing after lunch & he started whipping balls outside off stump through midwicket & even at times backward of square on the leg side.What I'm saying is there is a way of combatting negative off stump bowling but even Tendulkar can't manage it to the leg side stuff & I doubt whether there's ever been a batsman who could.
Tendulkar had to meet a lot of the deliveries with his pad if he could have been out LBW then he wouldn't have had a chance-to those that say well it's up to the batsman to deal with it they're living in cuckoo land this is the best in the world & couldn't score a run against it.
Plus has anyone actually considered how hard it is to judge an LBW decision to balls pitching outside leg stump & coming in, it's hard enough on the offsife but it would be ridiculous on the leg.At least outside of stump the umpire can see the stumps before the batsman moves into the shot & can judge where everything is,on the other side of the wicket he would never see leg stump & so would find it extremely hard to judge.
I'm not often rude to people on here as these things are opions & mine is no more relevant than anyone elses but I have to agree with gPhonque, when he says
Anyone who thinks the rule should be changed has either:
a) Not thought about it properly
or
b) No idea about cricket
Some one alluded to the old law as if once you could have been LBW to a ball pitching outside leg stump, I may be wrong here but I don't think a batsman has ever been able to be LB to this sort of delivery.
Simon_Nesbit
21 Dec 2001, 07:59
If this law was to come into effect, then the only effective counter-production would be for batsmen to change their stance, ala Wayne Larkins (?), the english batsman, who stood chest-on to the batsmen. I have actually seen a few local (club) batsmen use this tactic reasonably successfully, when facing a good leggie (or even the not-so-good, that get big turn).
The problem encountered with the change in stance, will be the change in eye-lines, footwork etc. It would prob take years (ie new players, full careers, perhaps even full generation), for this change to occur.
Why don't some of you try it in the backyard, training, etc.
Get a leggie (who rips it hard) to bowl outside leg stump. Try different ways of playing them.
Of course you would only bat chest-on when facing around the wicket, and revert to a normal side-on position when facing someone bowling over-the-wicket.
I think most batsmen open their stance somewhat to bowlers coming around the wicket.
Fat Red
21 Dec 2001, 08:27
After watching Giles bowl to Tendulkar I reluctantly have to concede on this one.
Originally posted by Simon_Nesbit
ala Wayne Larkins (?), the english batsman, who stood chest-on to the batsmen.
I think you might mean Peter Willey who's now a Test Umpire, he stood with a really open stance & then sort of moved squarer as the bowler bowled.
I think they both usually had a shortish sort of beard.
I'm trying to remember Wayne Larkins batting but it's a bit hazy, if he was open chested I doubt it wasto the same extent as Willey.