New LBW rule

[Manu Vatuvei]

Same thing. He misjudged the ball and it hit him on the Pad. If he wanted to leave it he should have made sure he left it. Because the ball hit him on the pad we will never know if it would have gone on to hit the stumps.

When the ball hits the batsmen on the pad and he is not playing a shot, there is no possible way the bowler can get him out other than LBW. Why should the bowler be penalised because the batsmen is not good enough to judge the line of the delivery?

The bowler isn't penalised. If the ball is going to hit the stumps than the umpire gives the batsman out. I thought it was a pretty simple rule actually.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

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.

With Chanderpaul I still think it was a fair enough leave on length.

 

[Front-Rower]

Thank goodness we don't have people like Waltzing Menninga running the game. What an absolute joke. Are you stating that you would like this rule to be brought in for a bit of a gee up? Have you or Do you ever play(ed) the sport in your life?

Like another person said, its TEST MATCH CRICKET. Even in one day cricket it is totally a tactical thing to do. A test of mental strength.

If we started giving out blokes for padding up to a ball that pitches 4 or 5 foot outside the off stump and giving them out, we might as well give batsmen out for doing the old Geoff Boycott that stand there blocking the whole day.

Goodness me, and tell me, how on earth can you be so certain that the ball would travel on to hit the stumps. I mean it is called Leg Before Wicket, not Leg Before It Might of/Could of/Maybe hit the Wicket. The umpire has to be at least 95% sure in his mind that it would of or would not of hit the stumps.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Thank goodness we don't have people like Waltzing Menninga running the game. What an absolute joke. Are you stating that you would like this rule to be brought in for a bit of a gee up? Have you or Do you ever play(ed) the sport in your life?

Like another person said, its TEST MATCH CRICKET. Even in one day cricket it is totally a tactical thing to do. A test of mental strength.

If we started giving out blokes for padding up to a ball that pitches 4 or 5 foot outside the off stump and giving them out, we might as well give batsmen out for doing the old Geoff Boycott that stand there blocking the whole day.

Goodness me, and tell me, how on earth can you be so certain that the ball would travel on to hit the stumps. I mean it is called Leg Before Wicket, not Leg Before It Might of/Could of/Maybe hit the Wicket. The umpire has to be at least 95% sure in his mind that it would of or would not of hit the stumps.

I have played cricket since I was 8 years old and I currently play at rep level.

No umpire can ever be 100% certain the ball would hit the stumps and the rule is that if there is doubt it goes to the batsmen. And that is a good rule. I just think that once a batsmen pads up to a delivery that is not pitching outside leg stump then he doesn't deserve the benifit of the doubt as all other modes of dismissal have been taken out. That isn't to say that he must be given out, just that he no longer has benifit of the doubt.

If you don't agree with it fine, but there are plenty of people in the cricket world who I have spoken to, who would no doubt have much more cricket experience than yourself that agree with what I am saying.

 

[fish eel]

I just think that once a batsmen pads up to a delivery that is not pitching outside leg stump then he doesn't deserve the benifit of the doubt as all other modes of dismissal have been taken out. That isn't to say that he must be given out, just that he no longer has benifit of the doubt.

so, now you want it to be for guys who pad up when it pitches outside leg as well as the left hander padding up to warnie when it pitches outside off?

guys who pad up when it pitches outside leg do so at their own peril.

I've lost count the number of guys who have been bowled doing that, or been caught by a ball that had a bit more in it, and kicked up taking their gloves.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

so, now you want it to be for guys who pad up when it pitches outside leg as well as the left hander padding up to warnie when it pitches outside off?

guys who pad up when it pitches outside leg do so at their own peril.

I've lost count the number of guys who have been bowled doing that, or been caught by a ball that had a bit more in it, and kicked up taking their gloves.

Do you know the rules? or cant you read? I still don't think you know the difference between leg and off stump. If you re-read what I said I said the rule shouldn't apply to balls pitching outside leg as you cannot be given out for this and that should not change.

 

[fish eel]

I just think that once a batsmen pads up to a delivery that is not pitching outside leg stump then he doesn't deserve the benifit of the doubt as all other modes of dismissal have been taken out. That isn't to say that he must be given out, just that he no longer has benifit of the doubt.

I'm just going by what you wrote.

do want batsman given out when it pitches outside leg?

 

[waltzing Meninga]

I'm just going by what you wrote.

do want batsman given out when it pitches outside leg?

My goodness. I hope English is your second Language. Do you see where it says If it is NOT pitching outside leg stump?

 

[fish eel]

ahh...my mistake

 

[waltzing Meninga]

No worries. I just can't see why everybody is disagreeing with this. The rule is already in place in the mind of some umpires already I just think it should be made an official rule change

 

[Twizzle]

Spot on Bazal. Why should you be given out if there's a chance the delivery will hit the stumps? .

because the rules say that's out

 

[Twizzle]

so, now you want it to be for guys who pad up when it pitches outside leg as well as the left hander padding up to warnie when it pitches outside off?

guys who pad up when it pitches outside leg do so at their own peril.

I've lost count the number of guys who have been bowled doing that, or been caught by a ball that had a bit more in it, and kicked up taking their gloves.

yeh, I think this is a pretty stupid rule

you can be bowled if the ball pitches outside leg stump, so why not LBW

stupid rule

the rules was bought in to stop negative bowling, like down the leg side, but some one like Shane Warne has to bowl leg side to hit the stumps

 

[Twizzle]

there is also another issue which no has mentioned yet

the amount of batsmen who thrust the pad out, with the bat tucked in behind it, to make it look like they are playing a shot, but they are not

its a hard call fo an unmpire, but I've seen a few given out when they had no intention of playing a shot, but tried to make it look like they were

 

[waltzing Meninga]

there is also another issue which no has mentioned yet

the amount of batsmen who thrust the pad out, with the bat tucked in behind it, to make it look like they are playing a shot, but they are not

its a hard call fo an unmpire, but I've seen a few given out when they had no intention of playing a shot, but tried to make it look like they were

I agree that is a big issue. A good umpire should be able to tell when a batsmen is playing a shot.

Unfortunatley not every umpire on the ICC team is a good umpire

 

[Balmain_Boy]

because the rules say that's out

Yeh typo. I meant to say "...ONLY a chance..."

 

[Front-Rower]

Fair dinkum. I bet your a bowler Waltzing Menninga.

Okay, what you are saying is if the ball pitches outside the offstump by approx 4 to 3 foot and the batsmen thrusts his pad down the wicket, outside the line of the offstump, and stretches approx 2 metres from the popping crease, you are saying that should be an automatic dismissal, even though we don't know:

1. How high the ball is going to bounce
2. How much spin the ball is going to have off the wicket
3. Even if it is going to hit the stumps

Thats good.

It might look ugly and be boring, but its a mode of defence for the batsmen and makes the bowler rethink their tactics. Cricket is more of a mental game than anything else.

To bring in this rule would be the downfall of batsmen in this wonderful game.

 

[[furrycat]]

Deadset what is the problem here?

If the batsman doesn't offer a shot and pads it away, he can be given out if the ball is going to hit the stumps with certainty.

If the batsman offers no shot while leaving the ball, he can be given out if the ball is going to hit the stumps with certainty.

If he pads it away, 10 steps down the pitch, what has he done wrong?
If it is 2 foot outside off stump, what has he done wrong?

The rule is there, it always has been.

Tendulkar was given out for ducking, offering no shot and getting hit in the back.

There is no problem here... But if the ball is spinning 5 feet, how can it be given out?

 

[Rammo]

Rudi is such an overrated umpire.

He's absolute crap, makes so many poor decisions.

Best ones are Taufel and Dar.

 

[budz]

Rudi is such an overrated umpire.

He's absolute crap, makes so many poor decisions.

Best ones are Taufel and Dar.

I dont rate Dar too much.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Fair dinkum. I bet your a bowler Waltzing Menninga.

Okay, what you are saying is if the ball pitches outside the offstump by approx 4 to 3 foot and the batsmen thrusts his pad down the wicket, outside the line of the offstump, and stretches approx 2 metres from the popping crease, you are saying that should be an automatic dismissal, even though we don't know:

1. How high the ball is going to bounce
2. How much spin the ball is going to have off the wicket
3. Even if it is going to hit the stumps

Thats good.

It might look ugly and be boring, but its a mode of defence for the batsmen and makes the bowler rethink their tactics. Cricket is more of a mental game than anything else.

To bring in this rule would be the downfall of batsmen in this wonderful game.

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