New LBW rule

[fish eel]

When you leave a ball whilst covering your stumps with your pads like Chanderpaul did there is no possibility of being bowled.

and what happened to chanderpaul?

and you can be bowled leaving a ball, ask Simon Katich. Even better, ask Alan Border, who was bowled leaving a ball at the scg versus south africa whenh we lost a tight one.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

and what happened to chanderpaul?

and you can be bowled leaving a ball, ask Simon Katich. Even better, ask Alan Border, who was bowled leaving a ball at the scg versus south africa whenh we lost a tight one.

I never said you can't be bowled leaving a ball. I said you an't be bowled leaving a ball while protecting your stumps with your pads

 

[fish eel]

I never said you can't be bowled leaving a ball. I said you an't be bowled leaving a ball while protecting your stumps with your pads

and shivnarine chanderpaul was given out, leg before wicket.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

and shivnarine chanderpaul was given out, leg before wicket.

And correctly so, which is why i am disputing the idea that he was hard done by

 

[fish eel]

But I thought you wanted rules changed regarding benefit of the doubt?

I'm saying, thats not needed, as the chanderpaul dismissal shows.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

But I thought you wanted rules changed regarding benefit of the doubt?

I'm saying, thats not needed, as the chanderpaul dismissal shows.

Yes that decision was fine, But what I am more concerened about was the Warne to Devon Smith scenario where he was padding him away to good leg spinning deliveries, spinning in from outside off stump. Had the benifit of the doubt rule been changed he would have been given out.

Matthew Hayden should have also been given out padding the ball away outside his off stump.

 

[JJ]

FFS left handers have done that forever... get over it!!

 

[waltzing Meninga]

FFS left handers have done that forever... get over it!!

And they should not be allowed to, hence I am expressing my opinion that this is a boring and frustrating strategy that deprives the bowlers a chance of taking a wicket because the batsmen has misjudged the line of the delivery or choses not to play a shot.

You should not be allowed to nullify a good delivery by simply padding the ball away

 

[Bazal]

And they should not be allowed to, hence I am expressing my opinion that this is a boring and frustrating strategy that deprives the bowlers a chance of taking a wicket because the batsmen has misjudged the line of the delivery or choses not to play a shot.

You should not be allowed to nullify a good delivery by simply padding the ball away

Why not? If you are struggling to play a bowler like Warne, why should you not be allowed the chance to survive with your wicket intact? This is cricket, not a turkey shoot! And why has a batsman automatically misjudged if he is kicking the ball away? I for one have played many innings that involved kicking away every second ball from spinners because they were bowling lines and lengths that were too risky to attempt to score off on the surface on which we were playing. Why should I risk my wicket to get some bat on a good ball when I have the much safer option of padding up and surviving long enough to put some runs on the board for my side?

 

[fish eel]

Why not? If you are struggling to play a bowler like Warne, why should you not be allowed the chance to survive with your wicket intact? This is cricket, not a turkey shoot! And why has a batsman automatically misjudged if he is kicking the ball away? I for one have played many innings that involved kicking away every second ball from spinners because they were bowling lines and lengths that were too risky to attempt to score off on the surface on which we were playing. Why should I risk my wicket to get some bat on a good ball when I have the much safer option of padding up and surviving long enough to put some runs on the board for my side?

Not only that, its TEST cricket.

If you wanna pad up....you'll tie yourself up, and the scoring will stop, but then it becomes a test....who will have the greater patience, will you eventually hit out....or will the bowler change his line?

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Why not? If you are struggling to play a bowler like Warne, why should you not be allowed the chance to survive with your wicket intact? This is cricket, not a turkey shoot! And why has a batsman automatically misjudged if he is kicking the ball away? I for one have played many innings that involved kicking away every second ball from spinners because they were bowling lines and lengths that were too risky to attempt to score off on the surface on which we were playing. Why should I risk my wicket to get some bat on a good ball when I have the much safer option of padding up and surviving long enough to put some runs on the board for my side?

Because there is no skill in padding a ball away. I could bat all day against Shane Warne if I was allowed to Pad every ball away. Sure you can Pad away the ones pitching outside leg stump and Deliveries where there is no chance the ball could hit the stumps, but IMO you should not be able to pad away deliveries that have a chance of hitting the stumps

 

[Bazal]

Because there is no skill in padding a ball away. I could bat all day against Shane Warne if I was allowed to Pad every ball away. Sure you can Pad away the ones pitching outside leg stump and Deliveries where there is no chance the ball could hit the stumps, but IMO you should not be able to pad away deliveries that have a chance of hitting the stumps

Actually, padding a ball away needs most of the same skills as a front foot defensive shot. You need to do everything bar get the bat to the ball. Other than that,if you're just padding away with no idea about line, length, turn, whether the ball is a straight leggie, wrong'un or flipper, you don't stand a chance. All the bowler needs is a straight one or flipper, or to put a few more revolutions on the ball, and you're as good as gone. Padding up is A) often the safest way to play a spinner. A batsman's job is to protect his wicket and score runs. You're proposing we take away an avenue through which to achieve that. And B), if a spinner is pinning you down, padding him away is often a strategic plan to frustrate him into giving you scoring opportunities by altering his line or length, or both. Cricket isn't always about flashy cover drives and big sixes and shattering stumps, as I'm sure you know. More often than not it's about the battle between two good players out in the middle. I love watching a great leggie like Warne being padded away and left alone, because it's a battle of wills to see either who cracks first and changes their game, or who can break the stalemate with either a brilliant shot or incredible delivery. It's part of what Test matches are all about.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Spot on Bazal. Why should you be given out if there's a chance the delivery will hit the stumps? With Chanderpaul, he was probably unlucky to be given out. Having said that, he has noone to blame but himself. That's a philosophy I can understand. But to give EVERYONE out for padding the ball away is a little silly imo.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Actually, padding a ball away needs most of the same skills as a front foot defensive shot. You need to do everything bar get the bat to the ball. Other than that,if you're just padding away with no idea about line, length, turn, whether the ball is a straight leggie, wrong'un or flipper, you don't stand a chance. All the bowler needs is a straight one or flipper, or to put a few more revolutions on the ball, and you're as good as gone. Padding up is A) often the safest way to play a spinner. A batsman's job is to protect his wicket and score runs. You're proposing we take away an avenue through which to achieve that. And B), if a spinner is pinning you down, padding him away is often a strategic plan to frustrate him into giving you scoring opportunities by altering his line or length, or both. Cricket isn't always about flashy cover drives and big sixes and shattering stumps, as I'm sure you know. More often than not it's about the battle between two good players out in the middle. I love watching a great leggie like Warne being padded away and left alone, because it's a battle of wills to see either who cracks first and changes their game, or who can break the stalemate with either a brilliant shot or incredible delivery. It's part of what Test matches are all about.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for a great contest in the middle even if does not involve run scoring or taking wickets. I just think that a LH batsmen should be obliged to defend a ball spinning in from outside off stump from a leg spin bowler.

I disagree where you say it requires much the same skills as a front foot defensive shot. The difference is that the Pad is twice as wide as the bat. also if the ball comes of the edge of the pad it doesn't matter. So your footwork doesn't need to be as accurate. I love seeing batsmen leaving spin bowling, because they are saying to the bowler "That is not going ot hit the stumps" and it forces the bowler to bowl a different line.

When you pad a ball away your saying "I don't know if it will hit the stumps so just in case it does, I will get my Pad in the way". And I think that if the umpire deems it has any chance of hitting the stumps he should give it out rather than having to be absolutley sure about it.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Spot on Bazal. Why should you be given out if there's a chance the delivery will hit the stumps? With Chanderpaul, he was probably unlucky to be given out. Having said that, he has noone to blame but himself. That's a philosophy I can understand. But to give EVERYONE out for padding the ball away is a little silly imo.

No one said you should be out for padding the ball away. I just think the beifit of the doubt should favour the bowler in those situations

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Don't get me wrong. I am all for a great contest in the middle even if does not involve run scoring or taking wickets. I just think that a LH batsmen should be obliged to defend a ball spinning in from outside off stump from a leg spin bowler.

I disagree where you say it requires much the same skills as a front foot defensive shot. The difference is that the Pad is twice as wide as the bat. also if the ball comes of the edge of the pad it doesn't matter. So your footwork doesn't need to be as accurate. I love seeing batsmen leaving spin bowling, because they are saying to the bowler "That is not going ot hit the stumps" and it forces the bowler to bowl a different line.

When you pad a ball away your saying "I don't know if it will hit the stumps so just in case it does, I will get my Pad in the way". And I think that if the umpire deems it has any chance of hitting the stumps he should give it out rather than having to be absolutley sure about it.

Can't agree. If you do that, you might be rewarding a bowler for bowling a delivery that might not hit the stumps.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Can't agree. If you do that, you might be rewarding a bowler for bowling a delivery that might not hit the stumps.

Obviously the umpire must deem it has a chance of hitting the stumps. And if a batsmen pads up to a ball that may hit the stumps then it is his own fault and poor judgemnt

 

[Balmain_Boy]

It becomes so subjective. How close is close enough?

 

[Bazal]

Don't get me wrong. I am all for a great contest in the middle even if does not involve run scoring or taking wickets. I just think that a LH batsmen should be obliged to defend a ball spinning in from outside off stump from a leg spin bowler.

I disagree where you say it requires much the same skills as a front foot defensive shot. The difference is that the Pad is twice as wide as the bat. also if the ball comes of the edge of the pad it doesn't matter. So your footwork doesn't need to be as accurate. I love seeing batsmen leaving spin bowling, because they are saying to the bowler "That is not going ot hit the stumps" and it forces the bowler to bowl a different line.

When you pad a ball away your saying "I don't know if it will hit the stumps so just in case it does, I will get my Pad in the way". And I think that if the umpire deems it has any chance of hitting the stumps he should give it out rather than having to be absolutley sure about it.

See I don't agree with the width thing. If the ball is outside the line of the stumps, the bat is an extension of the pad. A good front foot defence should leave no gap between bat and pad, thus increasing the area with which to play the ball. I know that when I defend against a guy spinning it back at me I place my bat against my pad when I choose to defend, effectively almost doubling the safe area with which to play the ball. Basically, for me, the difference between padding up and defending is simply putting the bat in the right place.

If the ball is going to hit the stumps, you know very well that you can be out. It takes judgment because you never ever want to risk being given out, so you don't want to pad up unless you are sure the ball won't hit. As much as an umpire may not give many of those shouts out, you never want to run the risk of the one batsman he does fire being you. Also you want to get the ball in the middle of the pad as often as possible in case it takes the edge, bobbles around and then takes the stumps. Which is especially a danger if you overstride towards the ball, it can often spin into your thigh or calf and roll onto the stumps. So it takes the same judgement and footwork to do it properly, and batsmen not showing the same judgement and concentration will usually get themselves out anyway.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

See I don't agree with the width thing. If the ball is outside the line of the stumps, the bat is an extension of the pad. A good front foot defence should leave no gap between bat and pad, thus increasing the area with which to play the ball. I know that when I defend against a guy spinning it back at me I place my bat against my pad when I choose to defend, effectively almost doubling the safe area with which to play the ball. Basically, for me, the difference between padding up and defending is simply putting the bat in the right place.

If the ball is going to hit the stumps, you know very well that you can be out. It takes judgment because you never ever want to risk being given out, so you don't want to pad up unless you are sure the ball won't hit. As much as an umpire may not give many of those shouts out, you never want to run the risk of the one batsman he does fire being you. Also you want to get the ball in the middle of the pad as often as possible in case it takes the edge, bobbles around and then takes the stumps. Which is especially a danger if you overstride towards the ball, it can often spin into your thigh or calf and roll onto the stumps. So it takes the same judgement and footwork to do it properly, and batsmen not showing the same judgement and concentration will usually get themselves out anyway.

When you defend with Bat and Pad there is always the chance that you can bobble a bat pad chance up in the air. so you need to be accurate enough to make sure it gets in the middle of the Bat. or middle of the Pad. When you just throw the pad at it it takes out that possibility and just rewards a negative approach from the batsmen and nullifies good bowling.

Sure you can misjudge one off the Pad and be bowled but that is a fairly rare way of being dismissed. I just personally think its a get out of Jail method the batsmen use