Braden StokesA change to the LBW law
May 12th 2008 09:57
Having done just about everything possible to advantage batsmen, it was nice to hear recently that the laws of cricket have been amended to stipulate that bat handles must be made predominantly from wood, cane and twine. Thus, bat manufacturers are prevented from inserting all sorts of substances into bat handles to aid batsmen to hit the ball harder and further. For once, it's nice to hear some confirmation from the powers that be that bowlers are not simply a hindrance to faster scoring and bigger hitting. While this pro-bowler sentiment is still in the air, I think it's time to reveal a rather radical idea I've been pondering for a while.
What I propose is an amendment to the LBW law which would allow a batsman to be given out even if the ball has pitched outside leg stump. If the intention of the LBW law is to prevent batsmen from using their pads to block the stumps, then I fail to see why it matters where the ball has pitched. I suppose the whole idea originated from my disgust at the practice of padding up to balls pitched outside leg and the equally disgusting practice of batsmen simply plonking their front leg down the wicket and swinging through the line. There is probably a very good reason why the originators of the LBW rule constructed it the way they did, but I can't for the life of me think of it.
There is no reason to suggest that a change in the rule would result in a sudden spike in LBW decisions. Remember that the ball still has to hit the batsman in line with the stumps and be deemed to be going on the hit the stumps. Therefore, balls pitching well outside leg stump are unlikely to qualify unless they turn or cut sharply, and even then there is likely to be some doubt in the umpire's mind as to whether it will hit the stumps. Furthermore, given that the ball must be delivered from inside the return crease, bowlers cannot bowl from some ridiculous angle and aim at the batsman's legs.
As things stand, if a right arm leg-spinner is bowling around the wicket to a right handed batsman (to take an obvious example), that batsman can be quite sure that most balls will pitch outside leg and can simply kick them away. Under a change of laws, one still cannot be sure that these deliveries would hit the stumps, and most likely would not be given out on appeal. However, the batsman cannot be as certain of this, and must then use his bat. The result would not be a rise in LBW decisions, but a greater chance of the batsman playing a false shot as the ball turns out of the rough. Thus, the bowler is hopeful of some reward for his toil. Some may consider this to be a way of encouraging negative bowling, but it seems the main reason these tactics are considered negative is because batsmen are not required to play a shot.
In the situation where a right-armer is bowling over the wicket to a left-hander, this batsman can be reasonably sure that (unless the ball is swinging in sharply) most balls will pitch outside leg. He is then relatively free to play through the line knowing that he is unlikely to be given out LBW. A change in law would simply make this batsman more careful with his strokeplay.
As I said before, there is probably a compelling reason why the LBW law is the way it is, and if any of you can think of it, please tell me. However, in the absence of such a compelling reason, I cannot see why batsmen should be able (in some circumstances) to use their pads to prevent the ball hitting the stumps. If this rule-change is not adopted, I have another suggestion: take away the batsman's pads!
What I propose is an amendment to the LBW law which would allow a batsman to be given out even if the ball has pitched outside leg stump. If the intention of the LBW law is to prevent batsmen from using their pads to block the stumps, then I fail to see why it matters where the ball has pitched. I suppose the whole idea originated from my disgust at the practice of padding up to balls pitched outside leg and the equally disgusting practice of batsmen simply plonking their front leg down the wicket and swinging through the line. There is probably a very good reason why the originators of the LBW rule constructed it the way they did, but I can't for the life of me think of it.
There is no reason to suggest that a change in the rule would result in a sudden spike in LBW decisions. Remember that the ball still has to hit the batsman in line with the stumps and be deemed to be going on the hit the stumps. Therefore, balls pitching well outside leg stump are unlikely to qualify unless they turn or cut sharply, and even then there is likely to be some doubt in the umpire's mind as to whether it will hit the stumps. Furthermore, given that the ball must be delivered from inside the return crease, bowlers cannot bowl from some ridiculous angle and aim at the batsman's legs.
As things stand, if a right arm leg-spinner is bowling around the wicket to a right handed batsman (to take an obvious example), that batsman can be quite sure that most balls will pitch outside leg and can simply kick them away. Under a change of laws, one still cannot be sure that these deliveries would hit the stumps, and most likely would not be given out on appeal. However, the batsman cannot be as certain of this, and must then use his bat. The result would not be a rise in LBW decisions, but a greater chance of the batsman playing a false shot as the ball turns out of the rough. Thus, the bowler is hopeful of some reward for his toil. Some may consider this to be a way of encouraging negative bowling, but it seems the main reason these tactics are considered negative is because batsmen are not required to play a shot.
In the situation where a right-armer is bowling over the wicket to a left-hander, this batsman can be reasonably sure that (unless the ball is swinging in sharply) most balls will pitch outside leg. He is then relatively free to play through the line knowing that he is unlikely to be given out LBW. A change in law would simply make this batsman more careful with his strokeplay.
As I said before, there is probably a compelling reason why the LBW law is the way it is, and if any of you can think of it, please tell me. However, in the absence of such a compelling reason, I cannot see why batsmen should be able (in some circumstances) to use their pads to prevent the ball hitting the stumps. If this rule-change is not adopted, I have another suggestion: take away the batsman's pads!
| 128 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by sportsbar
Fret X
It is there to negate negative bowling as much as anything... it would become an ugly game if you could bowl around the wicket into the footmarks and just fire them at the pads... Very ugly....
The field would crowd around and not much actual cricket would get played...
Imagine Shane Warne in his prime on a 5th day wicket not having to pitch it on the stumps... he would have taken 1500 wickets at that rate...
I agree the battle should be evened up, but this is not the way.
Comment by Julian Fernando
Since I enjoy silly hypotheticals, what if the change were only to be introduced into limited overs cricket? Bowling a leg-side line would be dangerous as you'd concede a lot of wides, and pitches obviously have no time to deteriorate. Furthermore, you'd be taking a risk by crowding the bat. But if a ball could come at an angle from leg to off and still be out LBW, it might just make batsmen a bit more careful with their strokeplay.