How to fix cricket's broken laws

Yep. "The Ball Of The Century" should have been not out because it must have been negative bowling because it pitched outside leg! :stoked:

If the reason the not out for LBW's pitching outside leg is to stop negative bowling then surely you shouldn't be out to ANY delivery pitching outside leg including caught behind, leg side stumping, and what I find amusingly called "The strangle down leg side" For goodness sake (to all the media commentators) he edged the ball nothing else! That is a hypocrisy. From the ICC-Test-Match-Playing-Conditions-Final-1-September-2019 22.1.3 For bowlers attempting to utilise the rough outside a batsman’s leg stump, not necessarily as a negative tactic, the strict limited over Wide interpretation shall be applied. 22.1.4 For bowlers whom umpires consider to be bowling down the leg side as a negative tactic, the strict limited over Wide interpretation shall be applied. The rules are there for umpires to use. You talk about Wagner bowling negative as the ball ages, but why isn't everyone else doing it? Is it because it doesn't really further your teams path to victory because it doesn't bring wickets? Give it time and batsmen will adapt and find a way. Just like they always do. I can't see the reasoning behind your last paragraph as it can all be done now anyway and any bowling that "far"negative down leg side was never going to be an LBW candidate anyway!

"So you can’t see the hypocrisy of a batsmen being not out lbw to a ball pitching even marginally outside leg where he/she has missed the ball yet can be out caught if they hit it?" What hypocrisy? It's a game. I didn't hear anyone bleating about hypocrisy when Wagner was bowling? What are the rules around negative bowling in Tests? The two bouncers per over is not to combat negative bowling, so what other rules could be used to stop negative bowling like this? As I said in my last post, it makes no difference whether you or anyone else is or is not advocating bowling wide of leg stump, this sort of change will allow captains to do exactly that and they would be stupid not to do so, if they have the attack to make best use of a rule designed apparently to improve the game.

In relation leg byes being either eliminated or given to the batsman. I'm not sure the batsman deserves runs for missing the ball so can't see the logic there. So should a fielding team be penalised with leg byes? A fielding side must be prepared to defend all possibilities - they might choose not to have a third man and accept the risk that a batsman top edges a ball over the slips for 4, so surely they need to accept the risk of a tickle off the pad going for 4 leg byes. In both instances, it can be claimed the bowler deceived the batsman but the luck of the game allows the batting team 4 runs.

Coming to this a bit late but enjoyed the debate - I can see both points of view. As an ageing traditionalist (low level batsman, part time keeper and bowler of very few overs), it is hard for me to accept change but I do tend to agree with the argument in favour of a review of the rule. If a ball pitching either outside off or outside leg was treated the same, it would change the game considerably - perhaps more than has been discussed here. I suspect, some batsmen will modify their stance - perhaps something more akin to the Glenn Maxwell T20 stance. Bowling and fielding strategy will also change as slips will become less important. After 10 years of the new rule, the game will have changed markedly (and possibly in ways we can't imagine and don't like). In response to those who claim it will encourage negative bowling, they use Neil Wagner as an example. He bowled this way without the ability to get an LBW. If he had that, he might have pitched a few up, got an occasional LBW and the games would have been more entertaining not less. The current rules almost encourage negative, short pitched, leg side bowling once the polish has gone and a bowler is getting no movement.

So you can't see the hypocrisy of a batsmen being not out lbw to a ball pitching even marginally outside leg where he/she has missed the ball yet can be out caught if they hit it? How can one be negative bowling and the other not? Your supposed added bonus is an example of the ball being bowled at the stumps which the batsmen had the job of protecting with the bat. He misses, the bowler hits, he's out. There are rules re negative bowling and wides which could be enacted and possibly should be now. I find it quite funny that some are on here saying that bowlers are to bowl where batsmen can hit it, no, the bowlers job is to get the batsmen out, everyone is used to the status quo, this would be a rule change to the benefit of the bowlers not the batsmen. As I said in a previous post no one is advocating bowling continuously 50 CM outside leg stump and rules could be framed to achieve this but the hypocrisy of the example I showed above is why I believe a fairer approach to the lbw rule should be looked at.

The first question to ask (say for Test matches) is how you feel about the general longevity of games being played today. Some test matches extend to a draw, some can end in less than 3 days. Are you satisfied with this balance? If you changed the laws to allow leg-side LBWs and/or no leg byes, you will only potentially shorten these matches. Is that the outcome you are seeking? Apart from perceived fairness of batter vs bowler, blah blah, what is the actual problem we are trying to address?

Sorry BM but whether people are or are not advocating negative bowling, that could easily be the end result. We saw a little of that in the series against the Black Caps where Williamson stacked the legside field, simply to stop guys from scoring runs. It succeeded as a tactic in the sense that it slowed Australia down, but the Kiwis lacked the necessary bowlers to do this well. If the proposal was adopted, I can easily foresee Root, for example, setting a 7/2 or 8/1 legside field and having his quicks, especially Archer, bowling around the wicket at the right handed batsman, which would virtually stop the scoring. There'd be an added bonus that if the batsman get's hit on the pad, they can be given out lbw. Please tell me how a batsman can play that sort of bowling and score runs? We saw how Wade tried to play it and that was against someone bowling half rat power. Head was not a whole lot better, nor was Steve Smith. Hey, if I was Tim Paine and this Law was in place, I'd be looking to do exactly the same thing with the quicks at his disposal.

Liew's article doesn't explain the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the omission of the ball pitching outside leg in the laws - he simply says that "in 1937 the law was changed to allow LBW if the ball pitched outside off-stump, as long it hit the pad in line with the stumps. ". The rationale behind the change is unexplained by Liew's article, and it's my contention that the reason for excluding the ball pitching outside leg is because it's more difficult to play, and was more dangerous in the time that the law was changed to include the ball pitching outside off, and therefore the ball pitching outside leg was indeed considered, and based on that consideration was consciously rather than unconsciously omitted. If the MCC hadn't thought this through, they would have simply removed 36.1.2 from the laws, because it would simplify the laws and there would be no need to mention where the ball pitches at all. You make a fair point that there's something of a leap in my argument when I start the paragraph "As to why the law exists...". I should have clarified that this was my opinion on why the law has remained in place - not that this was necessarily the express reasoning behind the change to 36.1.2, but that these are valid reasons to keep the law in place. I think that removal of the law, and the changes to batting and bowling that it would effect (much more open batting stances to combat round-the-wicket bowling, and probably the diminution of shots played with a straight bat thanks to the change in stance) are not on balance positive changes. (And I say this as a left-arm swing bowler who would likely have taken a fair few more wickets had this altered law been in place when I was playing). In regards to a trial, it would have to be fairly long-term - batsmen would have to adapt their batting stances to be much more open than they currently are, and I don't think that would be the work of a moment.

Paul this is a response I wrote to a subsequent post; No one is advocating bowling continuously 50 CM outside leg stump (even though we see it happening outside off as a negative tactic) but if a ball pitches a ball width outside leg stump is ineligible for LBW (when it’s going to hit the stumps) how on earth can it be negative bowling? If a leg spinner gains a caught behind pitching in the same place it’s still out and praised as great bowling, not in anyway negative but a batsmen stopping it with his pad rather than his bat (with the ball considered to be hitting the stumps) gets no result shows how much the laws are set up for/by batsmen.

There is equality for all - the same rule applies to all players.

Re Wagner - he bowled leg theory which is a way of boring a batsman out b y depriving him of runs. He's good enough to do it using the short ball because he is strong and accurate. Your rule change will encourage others to do it as well with fuller balls. The result will be very boring cricket. Re free shot - further to the last point, batsmen will stop playing anything slightly risky across the line to balls pitching outside leg stump because of the risk of lbw if they miss. Again, you will get more defensive shots when previously you had more attacking shots. DRS - if you don't allow leg byes then surely the decision to say something did or didn't hit the bat would become reviewable - similar to what it is for dismissals. Maybe not but it would be a natural consequence in my mind. Finally, the idea that opposite handed bowlers are discriminated against is silly. There is no rule which forces you to bowl from the leg side. Indeed the England team almost exclusively bowl their RH bowlers around the wicket to LHBs. In fact, left handed bowlers bowling over the wicket to right handed batsmen have a natural advantage because their ball release naturally puts them closer to stump line than a right handed bowler bowling around the wicket to a RHB.

hi RowiE, I'm left handed both as a batsman & bowler at at no stage in my career did I feel discriminated against, especially with bowling. It was pointed out to me time after time that I had two options to get lbws, one was the get the ball to move back into the batsman and the other was to bowl very full, almost yorker length, a la Starc. From a batting persepctive, there was more than one occasion where it suited me and my team to have the current laws in place because as right hand bowlers well know, they too have to bring the ball back into a left handed batsman if they're bowling over the wicket. "You claim that we want to see more runs and that my proposal wouldn’t achieve that". Please read my comments again, what I said was "The whole basis of the game is to see which side can score the most runs and in the modern era fans want to see lots of runs". I then said that we also wanted a contest and changing these Laws would not give us that and I stand by that comment. I've spent my entire working career managing change, training staff in how to cope and managers in how to identify & implement change, so far from change averse. What is clear to me but perhaps not to you, is why change needs to occur and in this instance, it should only happen if it's for the betterment of the game as a whole. You have not given a single reason how making this change will improve cricket as a playing or viewing spectacle. You've put up some guesses to back your arguments and that's fair enough, but I'm guessing your guesses are wrong!

I disagree with your contention that "...the original law that required the ball to pitch in line was modified to allow the ball to pitch outside off and hit in line to meet the requirements. The ball pitching outside leg remained by default." The law excludes the ball pitching outside leg by omission, but not by default - I think that law 36.1.2 intentionally excludes the ball that pitches outside leg. Were this simply an oversight, that law would have been removed in it's entirety rather than modified (law 36.1.2 is not required if the point where the ball pitches is immaterial to the LBW decision). As to why that law exists, the stance of a batter means that they cannot play a delivery bowled outside the leg stump with the same range of strokes that can be employed to a ball pitched outside off - defensive strokes with an upright bat are more difficult to a ball bowled outside leg, for example. The current law balances this wider array of possible shots by also allowing the bowler an additional method of dismissing the batter. If LBWs were valid for balls pitching outside leg, a good bowler would bowl everything outside leg across the batter (around-the-wicket bowling would become the norm), relying on a ball that leaves the batter to do everything - ones that move less to hit the pads for LBW, ones that move more to take nicks through to the cordon. The skills that a bowler should develop would reduce, because the leg cutter and outswinger would suffice for all modes of dismissal.

For ex Catholics and left handers certainly.

The whole point to outlaw LBW for balls pitching outside leg-stump is to stop negative attitude. The point is to encourage the bowlers to bowl where the batsman is likely to hit the ball. If everyone bowled like Neil Wagner then laws would be looked into and altered quickly.

Understood, I'm just not sure I agree.