New LBW rule

[waltzing Meninga]

I dont rate Dar too much.

Dar is horrific, one of the worst on the Panel. That Simon Katich LBW in the Ashes will go down as one of the biggest umpiring f**k ups of all time

 

[Front-Rower]

No in this case he should not be given out. All I am saying is that the batsmen should lose his benifit of the doubt.

It doesn't mean that he should be given out - just that the umpire doesn't have to apply the benifit of the doubt. I just think the umpires should be more leniant towards the bowler when the batsmen is not offering a shot.

Most umpires are anyway I just think it should be brought in as an official law of the game

You've lost me now.

The unwritten law in cricket always has been if the batsmen refuses to play a shot he loses all benifit of the doubt. Its always the way. But the umpire still has to be sure the ball will hit the stumps.

We don't need it written into the laws. It would just complicate the matter. Just like in league. Where is the benifit for the attacking team? how do you determine when to use the benifit? Leaving it the way it is at the moment keeps some more controversy out of the game.

 

[Iafeta]

If a batsman leaves a ball that isn't going to hit the stumps, then what exactly has he done wrong? If he leaves the ball and it doesn't hit his pad, but narrowly misses the stumps, should he be given out for a bad leave?

Exactly.

By the same token, if it doesn't touch his pad we give him the nod of approval for "good judgement."

Go figure.

 

[Iafeta]

No because it didn't hit the stumps, but if a batsmen pads the ball away we will never know if it was or wasn't going to hit the stumps and the batsmen should be punished for not playing a shot to a ball that could have possibly hit the stumps. Devon Smith was getting away with absolute murder in the first innings against warne.

It ruins the game. No-one wants to sit there and see a batsmen pad away perfectly good deliveries.

Thats up to the judgement of the umpire.

Its his decision on whether it was going to hit the stumps.

If its not, or it has doubt then it is not out. Nothing wrong with the rule. Not every player is a crasher or a basher, and some of the all time greats like Boycott, Gavaskar made a living out of judgement the right balls to leave/shoulder arms to. You don't give them out because their judgement is good. If their judgement is off and in the eyes of the umpire it has not pitched outside leg stump and is going to take the stumps, he should be given out - not on the pretense of what stroke he has not played.

 

[Iafeta]

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

Rubbish.

I've seen many a batsman shoulder arms only to see their bails go flying. I've seen spinners hit cracks outside off stump and bowl batsman not playing shots. I've seen Warne himself bowl batsmen around their legs who weren't playing shots.

There's every possibility of being bowled, it comes down to your technique and judgement still.

 

[Iafeta]

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

No, lets just leave it with give him out if its going to hit the stumps. Not maybe, ifs, nots, wouldas, couldas, shouldas.

Not a chance, but a definitive yes it would have struck the stumps. You're opening up a massive can of worms for poor decisions, and highly contentious decisions that doesn't need to be opened up.

 

[Twizzle]

from www.lords.org

Rule 36, the LBW Rule

Law 36 (Leg before wicket)

1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

3. Off side of wicket
The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.

This may help solve a few arguments