The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket

Message Board Archives

Revisiting the LBW law

 
Tryangle 2017-12-05 10:08:56 

An interesting look at the lbw, a law that may be in need of a revamp?

But let us return to the first principle of cricket: if the ball is hitting the stumps, you should be capable of hitting it. Simplifying the LBW law - if the ball would have hit the stumps, off you go - makes eminent sense for a number of reasons. It would finally remove the Kipling-era distinction between leg-side and off, and continue the work of DRS in gradually eliminating the use of the pad as a defensive ploy. It would reaffirm the two truisms of cricket: that batsmen should try and use their bats, and bowlers should try and hit the stumps. And importantly, it would be so much easier to understand.

 
Ewart 2017-12-05 10:46:11 

In reply to Tryangle

That 1937 rule seems to speak to balls pitched outside the off-stump. However, the prime argument that is apparently being made here is with regard to balls pitched outside the leg-stump.

If that is the case, then we should be hearing about a change of law after Alfred Valentine wrecked England in the 1950 series with his finger-spin leg-breaks.

//

 
Tryangle 2017-12-05 13:22:53 

In reply to Star

Star if I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that when the technology is used, the only calls should be out or not out, and the "inconclusive" aspect be thrown out altogether?