Change the LBW Law - Ian Chappell

[corbies]

Change the ball-tampering and lbw laws

It's the ideal time for administrators to redress the imbalance between bat and ball

www.espncricinfo.com

The new lbw law should simply say: "Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire's opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted."

Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it's going to hit the stumps, it's out.

I really don't think he's thought that through.

 

[PhatBoy]

Would change the whole fabric of batting. There is a reason batsmen stand the way they stand. It gives them the best position from which to play the shots that we love watching cricket for. Bring this rule in and suddenly not only does everyone stand live shivnarine Chanderpaul at the face-up point they will probably remain there to play the delivery.

 

[GROTTO]

One thing they should change is that if Hawkeye is saying that its hitting the stumps. Then its out. There is just too much ambiguity. Make it standard, then its going to be fair for all teams.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

As a cricket lover. Turn it up, Ian.
As a bowler. You genius, Ian.

 

[Hamingja]

To redress the imbalance between bat and ball, wouldn't we need to do something to help the batsman? I mean outside of Smith/Lab and a few of the Indians is anyone actually scoring runs at the moment?

3rd highest run scorer last year was Joe Root averaging 37. That's a bit lopsided because the Indians didn't play a lot of tests but geez.

 

[PhatBoy]

One thing they should change is that if Hawkeye is saying that its hitting the stumps. Then its out. There is just too much ambiguity. Make it standard, then its going to be fair for all teams.

I know the naked eye is no more specific but until the technology is foolproof I don’t think they can do that

 

[Phone]

Change the ball-tampering and lbw laws

It's the ideal time for administrators to redress the imbalance between bat and ball

www.espncricinfo.com

I really don't think he's thought that through.

On the counter, I think he's been thinking about it since about 1970, which is about how long this debate has been going on for. The debate dying down over the past few years has perhaps made this seem more radical than it is. It's been tossed around for years, particularly in regards to the impact it could have on leg spin bowling prior to Warne coming along

 

[Power Raid]

One thing they should change is that if Hawkeye is saying that its hitting the stumps. Then its out. There is just too much ambiguity. Make it standard, then its going to be fair for all teams.

agree

if it is hitting the stumps it is hitting the stumps. Imagine getting bowled and arguing the whole ball didn't hit the stumps.

sure the technology isn't 100% but it is good enough. At least it forces batsmen to play their shots.

 

[GROTTO]

agree

if it is hitting the stumps it is hitting the stumps. Imagine getting bowled and arguing the whole ball didn't hit the stumps.

sure the technology isn't 100% but it is good enough. At least it forces batsmen to play their shots.

Also given that most of us watch cricket on the TV, its very entertaining to know straight away that if its hitting its out.

I actually think this will improve umpiring as well, most cricket enthusiasts coach potatoes can tell when the ball is hitting the stumps and I think most umpires will prefer this as well. Removes the ambiguity of pitching in line, which I call BS, because balls can pitch outside the line and still hit the stumps.

 

[GROTTO]

I know the naked eye is no more specific but until the technology is foolproof I don’t think they can do that

You never will get foolproof technology but you will be able to improve the accuracy and probability of being correct.

if the same standards are applied to both teams and across the world. Its a fair system then.

 

[PhatBoy]

You never will get foolproof technology but you will be able to improve the accuracy and probability of being correct.

if the same standards are applied to both teams and across the world. Its a fair system then.

if the ball is shown to be shaving the stumps, based on an imperfect prediction, I think it is very hard to just say ‘that’s unequivocally out.’

 

[PhatBoy]

On the counter, I think he's been thinking about it since about 1970, which is about how long this debate has been going on for. The debate dying down over the past few years has perhaps made this seem more radical than it is. It's been tossed around for years, particularly in regards to the impact it could have on leg spin bowling prior to Warne coming along

I don’t think it would work with legspin. At least with a fast bowler pitching the ball outside leg stump, aside from a bit of minimal swing or seam movement you know that the ball will carry on a more or less straight trajectory from where it was angled. You don’t get that benefit from spin where the ball literally changes direction. True it is hard to guess that with off spin as well but the level of turn generally isn’t as great

 

[GROTTO]

if the ball is shown to be shaving the stumps, based on an imperfect prediction, I think it is very hard to just say ‘that’s unequivocally out.’

Youre missing the point. The system would be applied to both teams for the game, for all countries throughout the world. The rules will be fair.

"Shaving" the stumps is all you need to dislodged the bails. (Yes on the rare extreme occasions the ball can hit the stumps and not dislodge the bails).

Ive seen bowlers hit the stumps while bowling and the batsmen not out, as the bails didnt dislodged. More of a freak of nature, Is that fair for the bowler?

 

[corbies]

Also given that most of us watch cricket on the TV, its very entertaining to know straight away that if its hitting its out.

I actually think this will improve umpiring as well, most cricket enthusiasts coach potatoes can tell when the ball is hitting the stumps and I think most umpires will prefer this as well. Removes the ambiguity of pitching in line, which I call BS, because balls can pitch outside the line and still hit the stumps.

It doesn't have to pitch in line. It only needs to not pitch outside leg. Impact has to be in line.

 

[Caesar]

On the counter, I think he's been thinking about it since about 1970, which is about how long this debate has been going on for. The debate dying down over the past few years has perhaps made this seem more radical than it is. It's been tossed around for years, particularly in regards to the impact it could have on leg spin bowling prior to Warne coming along

Whilst I am not inclined to dismiss the suggestion out of hand, I think it is a bit precipitous. The last major modification to the LBW law, as you refer to, was in 1970 - to allow LBW for balls pitching outside off where no stroke was offered. Even such a comparatively minor change resulted in a substantial and immediate increase in LBW dismissals that has, today, almost doubled the pre-change number.

I pretty strongly believe that the biggest impact of what Chappell is suggesting would not be to encourage more positive play of spin, but rather far more negative pace bowling. Bodyline and earlier forms of leg theory showed that there is huge benefit to closing off 70% of the ground to scoring. If bowlers can obtain wickets by doing so then we will see very little reason to to habitually target off-stump (with the attendant risks of offering batsmen a full range of strokes).

At best I would endorse a trial of mirroring the rules on the off-side - that is, allowing the possibility of dismissal if the batsman does not offer a stroke. But I suspect such a trial would still have the net result of much more negative cricket.

 

[PhatBoy]

Youre missing the point. The system would be applied to both teams for the game, for all countries throughout the world. The rules will be fair.

"Shaving" the stumps is all you need to dislodged the bails. (Yes on the rare extreme occasions the ball can hit the stumps and not dislodge the bails).

Ive seen bowlers hit the stumps while bowling and the batsmen not out, as the bails didnt dislodged. More of a freak of nature, Is that fair for the bowler?

yes because clearly you have to hit the stumps hard enough to dislodge the bails.

 

[GROTTO]

yes because clearly you have to hit the stumps hard enough to dislodge the bails.

No you dont. I have seen bowlers hit the wickets at 130+ km/hr and the bails not dislodge. I have also seen the ball slowly and gently roll on the ground and hit the stumps and dislodge the bails.

 

[GROTTO]

It doesn't have to pitch in line. It only needs to not pitch outside leg. Impact has to be in line.

Yes I know that, but what I am suggesting is even if it pitches outside leg, if Hawkeye is saying its hitting then its OUT.

In fact it will make it easier for both teams when using their appeals to keep them IMO.

 

[DAlembert]

Ian Chappell was a hero of mine as a kid but frankly he is past his use by date...not unlike myself it has to be said. Pads were part of your defense back in the old days and we all used them as a last line of defense if baffled by some spinning delivery. Whence we were taught to keep the bat close to the pads. Well that all changed as the rules changed and probably fair enough. Shouldering arms to the perfect off cutter deserves the end result because the bowler has fooled the batter. But as other have said if the pads are no longer part of a batsman's defense then we may as well wear no pads and play like a baseballer..better still get rid of cricket and let's play baseball arguably a better game anyway. Batting techniques have evolved in cricket to the point Test Cricket batters on wickets that do a bit seem to fail consistently. I just wonder why we have to tinker with cricket. STFU Chapelli bowlers have enough ways of getting batsman out. And quite frankly a lot of LB's today are still controversial the same as they were when an umpire made the call. Would be interesting to know the % of LB's as a dismissal Post 2000 as opposed to before 2000.

 

[PhatBoy]

No you dont. I have seen bowlers hit the wickets at 130+ km/hr and the bails not dislodge. I have also seen the ball slowly and gently roll on the ground and hit the stumps and dislodge the bails.

exactly. How is that any different from a fieldsman getting two fingers to the ball and clinging onto it and someone else taking it smack bang on the palm of both hands and dropping it when they hit the ground.
It’s only out of it’s out. Unless we are taking zing bails, if the ball doesn’t dislodge the bail it hasn’t made forceful enough contact to do the job so it’s not out

 

[Gibbke]

I know the naked eye is no more specific but until the technology is foolproof I don’t think they can do that

As Grotto said, it's more about consistency. Presently you've got two variables fighting each other for control - the umpire's naked eye and this technology - and at least one of them can be further fine tuned with development...

 

[Gibbke]

Youre missing the point. The system would be applied to both teams for the game, for all countries throughout the world. The rules will be fair.

"Shaving" the stumps is all you need to dislodged the bails. (Yes on the rare extreme occasions the ball can hit the stumps and not dislodge the bails).

Ive seen bowlers hit the stumps while bowling and the batsmen not out, as the bails didnt dislodged. More of a freak of nature, Is that fair for the bowler?

I've never liked the degree to which a hawkeye decision can tip a batsman out. To me, to cover for the variables which are impossible to predict at this stage of the scientific evolution of cricket decision making (I could write an essay on the presently unconsidered variables a predictive device could factor in in 50 or 100 years, which would make future Hawkeye jawdroppingly accurate), I think the benefit of the doubt to batsman mentality should dictate that a ball needs to be covering at least the width of the stump in its trajectory, and not shaving according to a computer graphic...if the original decision was not out, then anything less than this should be treated as inconclusive and the umpire's judgment stands. If the decision was out and was being reviewed by the batsman, same deal...overturned and not out. This would still be a step up from pre-tech days - umpires like Lou Rowan were notorious for their attitude to LBW, in that it needed to be absolutely plumb to be given out. You'd think he would have been overturned regularly in this day and age...

 

[Teen Wolf]

Definitely bring this into T20 cricket (even go a step further and say it doesn't matter if there's bat first). It's pathetic when bowlers charge in off the long run and then toss up a 100km/h half-tracker, or just aim for the blue paint, because they're scared of the mean batting man hitting their widdle white ball away.

I'd therefore not want it introduced to Test cricket because the two formats are already too similar and some course correction is required there (posted a thread about this after last year's Headingley heroics by Ben Stokes, which got a tepid response at best...). And by the way, it wouldn't speed up the game, despite what Chappelli claims. Teams get through their overs at whatever pace they want.

Would change the whole fabric of batting. There is a reason batsmen stand the way they stand. It gives them the best position from which to play the shots that we love watching cricket for. Bring this rule in and suddenly not only does everyone stand live shivnarine Chanderpaul at the face-up point they will probably remain there to play the delivery.

Would love to know how you reached that wacky conclusion.

 

[DAlembert]

I've never liked the degree to which a hawkeye decision can tip a batsman out. To me, to cover for the variables which are impossible to predict at this stage of the scientific evolution of cricket decision making (I could write an essay on the presently unconsidered variables a predictive device could factor in in 50 or 100 years, which would make future Hawkeye jawdroppingly accurate), I think the benefit of the doubt to batsman mentality should dictate that a ball needs to be covering at least the width of the stump in its trajectory, and not shaving according to a computer graphic...if the original decision was not out, then anything less than this should be treated as inconclusive and the umpire's judgment stands. If the decision was out and was being reviewed by the batsman, same deal...overturned and not out. This would still be a step up from pre-tech days - umpires like Lou Rowan were notorious for their attitude to LBW, in that it needed to be absolutely plumb to be given out. You'd think he would have been overturned regularly in this day and age...

There definitely needs to be tech included with LB decisions. Remember how contentious it was in the past. Sub Continent umpires seemed to refuse giving out star Indian/Pakistan/Sri Lankan players out in this manner..Javed Miandad Comes to mind. On the other hand some bowlers screamed their lungs out every time they hit a pad Glen McGrath...Shane Warne come to mind in recent times. Lb's are part of the game within a game. Trigger Happy umpires were targeted by players and also the old 1 2 3 umpire who usually by no 3 was prepared to stick his finger up. Players at Club and first class level knew who these umpires were and I could mention names but won't. Lets just hope the technology improves to a point where it rarely gets it wrong...but I do not trust the technology as is. Just as a theory maybe that is why we see so many pitches that look almost identical and play the same...this can take many of the variables out of the equation and the "inferior" technology is more likely to be right. It won't take 50/100 years tho. Cricket as we know it may not even exist in 50 years.

 

[LordLucifer]

One thing they should change is that if Hawkeye is saying that its hitting the stumps. Then its out. There is just too much ambiguity. Make it standard, then its going to be fair for all teams.

I reckon Hawkeye is an inaccurate dud piece of computerised imaging.

Should never ever be considered as a viable piece of adjudication.