No ball down the leg side

[Frodo]

It is hard to hit any ball that is basically going behind you in your stance, so a no ball in one day games is reasonable. However, now player are deliberately moving inside the line at a ball aimed at the body but passing the leg side of the stumps, and this is being called wide.
Such a ball is very playable by the batsman in his normal stance but is often hard to get away. I think that umpires need to take a close look at this rule and only give the wide if it would have gone past the player in his normal stance.

 

[Darky]

No balls down the legside = strap them to your leg.

 

[Spogs]

This rule annoys the hell out of me. It's not the bowlers fault if the batsman can't play a leg glance or a pull shot if its a bit shorter. The rule is just designed so the umpires don't have to make a decision because if it's wide of the leg stump it's called wide. There've been a number of short balls (under the new rule) that have gone over the batsmans head been called wide because they've gone wide of leg stump. If the batsman stands up and gets inside it, that ball is sitting up to be thumped to the square leg boundary.

It's getting to the point where all the umpires do these days is count the number of balls in the over, and they've been making plenty of mistakes doing that lately as well.

 

[Fat Red]

I think it's the enforcement that's the problem, not the rule. Umpires have to call based on where the batsman starts, not where he finishes.