Thanks for the article Ronan. I didn’t see the match, can you comment on the field settings for Parker? I think that protective, or in-out fields aren’t being set for young spinners, leggies in particular. Captains just expect too much and drag them when they get hit for a few fours.
They should be bowling experienced seamers at the other end as well, to help with scoring pressure.
Your thoughts?

Agree that there’s risk in life everywhere. Disagree that you then reference an unrelated and completely different circumstance, then exaggerate to the extreme and then try to use it as a logical argument against. Failed effort, try some well thought out logic and well expressed response.

And your point is?

Thanks for at least providing a position.
I disagree completely with your assertion and it seems you didn’t read my article.
You haven’t mentioned the flat batted pull shot coming in like a rocket. If you haven’t seen that happen you do not watch T20 cricket.
You also assume everyone’s watching. You certainly haven’t been to the cricket. So your assertion of level of risk doesn’t have much going for it.
Please don’t try to run an argument on the basis that something else is worse. That doesn’t stack up either.

No it’s you and others who have missed the point. This is my last effort at explaining it. My point is that, while you and others reading here may fully understand the risk, not everyone does. There are many patrons that cannot evaluate the danger and risk to them and family when attending a cricket match. If you can’t appreciate this, please stop reading now and log out.
In circumstances where a risk is such that serious injury is a likely outcome, it is the responsibility of those providing the venue to provide an environment that is as safe as practicably or reasonably possible. In this situation I say netting should be provided as a reasonable solution. Compromises on safety and enjoyment have to be made.
Your reference to the beach is not applicable because no-one provides the venue and it is therefore a different situation.

You’ve lost me Mitcher, all I’m saying is that as the near misses increase in number, the likelihood of a hit increases. If you disagree with that, you’re disagreeing with risk analysis theory and logic. I responded to a comment that suggested if no-one has been hit so far, then it’s not likely to happen.
Wilful ignorance? I’ll just ignore that. You’d have to explain how my children are involved. I think you responded to a another article you are so off the mark.

Edward, given your statement ‘practically no danger’ I don’t think I will even bother trying to convince you otherwise. I would prefer you write reasonable comments rather than criticise, without providing any contradicting argument, just unsupported opinion.
I will do my best to write a proper sports article next time, rather than highlight an issue that could put the sport on the headlines for all the wrong reasons, please accept my abject apologies.

Marty, please read the article, I did not state or even suggest netting on the outfield fences.

Please see my other responses to those who are happy to accept the risk. I’m quite happy for you to accept the risk for yourself, I think it unacceptable to risk the general set of viewing patrons.

Thanks DaveJ, I have addressed the issue of ‘we haven’t heard about anything really bad yet’ comment in my response on risk.
I’m not sure about your baseball comparison, the difference in ball weights would considerably alter impact figures. But let’s not worry until the 10 year old girl, 70 metres from the pitch gets a flat batted pull that just clears the fence and hits her squarely in the mouth, then we’ll act. I agree the odds are very low, unfortunately the consequences of this scenario are horrendous. In a risk analysis, this is when you should act.

Thanks Wayne, you can only accept the risk when you know what it is and the potential for outcomes. Do you see any notices around the ground stating that a cricket ball may come flying your way, perhaps by way of deflection that you can’t control, and smack you in the face? And that any injury could be serious. When they start providing this awareness on the ground and on the tickets, I may agree with you.

Thanks for your comment elvis, to you and the others who liked your comment, please take the time to understand risk. You can provide any numbers you like, it just means that the chances of injury are getting more and more likely.
In general, young single males don’t mind or dont recognise risk and older people, particularly parents, as I am, have a totally different outlook.
You may wish to accept the risk, it doesn’t mean that others are prepared to. The nanny state call is really an effort to ignore the reality. You like the nanny state when it regulates to your benefit, I would suggest.

Hi HR,if you have not read the article I refer to, I encourage you to do so. Without looking at the complete history of the LBW Law I don’t think you’re in a position to assume what changes happened. Besides that, I can’t follow you’re logic anyway. The Law got changed to include the ball that pitched outside off. They didn’t consider leg side at all, so it stayed out by default.
I disagree with your assertion about what would happen if the law was changed as I suggest. You may wish to read other responses I’ve made in this thread.
As others have tried to do, you support the current LBW Law in hindsight, it’s one and only intention was to stop batsman using their pads unfairly. I don’t think you can now say, in support of it’s wording that it has these other benefits, as you see them. I point out in my article about playing leg side or at the body and my general answer is that batsman need to develop better skills, they’ve been cosseted too long.

Additionally, I would disagree that around the wicket would become the norm. I don’t disagree that this type of bowling may become a little more prevalent but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. To suggest that it would be the norm can’t be sustained in MO. Why would all the other methods and bowling types not remain? You limit your argument to a bowler who can sustain line and length on a wicket that’s seaming or ball that’s swinging and he has a leg cutter! That guy is going to take a bagful regardless of the LBW law.
I think your assertion has some validity, but we disagree on extent. That is why I suggested trial to see if there’s any unforeseen outcomes. Thanks

Hi Paul, I think that it is broke and moreover the game would be enhanced because we would widen the variety of methods of attack for bowlers as well as making the game fairer. Aren’t you for greater variety in the game?
You mention that we want to see a contest and I agree but why should that contest be loaded as it currently is in favour of certain bowlers? Why should someone who is born left handed i.e. bowls LA be discriminated against, I would have say that all responses that have opposed my proposal have not addressed that point.
You claim that we want to see more runs and that my proposal wouldn’t achieve that, so it’s not worth doing. Is that really your reason, because it’s not very convincing, or are you just change averse?
I have addressed the notion that this proposal would cause negative play a number of times in this thread and I encourage you to read them.
Thanks and only too happy to discuss, I am encouraged by the interest in this topic. Cheers RowiE

Yes, yes, yes I am slowly changing the world 😊

Your Eminence is correct in stating the reason for the LBW Law existence and also how it would apply under my proposal.
This is the current situation on the off side why should it not be the same on the leg side? Equality for all, your Holiness.

Thanks for the thought JGK but couldn’t agree with you less.
Wagner bowled half way down the track so I can’t see and relevance in a change to the LBW Law. You’ll have to clarify your there.
I don’t understand your second paragraph at all. It seems to say good batsman can play the ball on the pads well but miss occasionally but they shouldn’t be penalised. So as you say, it’s a free shot. Why? That’s the whole point of the article, it shouldn’t be a free shot!
Leg byes go to the batsman for missing the ball, that’s worse than the existing law. The umpire still has to make the decision anyway because he has to determine if it’s runs or leg byes. So I can’t understand your point there.
As for the DRS, why would you introduce DRS for this, it doesn’t apply now.
Can you still argue that these are terrible ideas? You may not like them or you don’t like change, I have no problem with that, but the reasons you provided don’t stack up for me. Happy for you to clarify, Cheers RowiE

Hi jameswm in response to your three scenarios my answer is yes, yes and yes. And this is exactly the point of the article, because currently those three methods of attack are unfairly disadvantaged.
The type of bowler you describe are being discriminated against. This is precisely the unfairness that my article was intending to highlight.

My point exactly 😊

Hi GaryF thank you also for yourcomments. I do however disagree. Negative leg side bowling does not include bowling at the stumps or close to. If it did it would not stop the run scoring which is it’s obvious intention. So the negative outside leg line issue is irrelevant. So back to attacking the stumps. Two behind square and four more fieldsman in front. Okay, mid on forward square midwicket and someone on the fence and you have an upper order batsman at the crease and your bowling at his legs AND you want to stop runs. As a Captain I’m not looking at that as a strategy.
Yes, outside edge is still in play, I didn’t say ALL off side catching opportunities were gone.
Also disagree with the assumption that there would be more bowling at the body. If you mean above stump height the LBW is not applicable and if you mean below stump height we are back to my original point. Any batsman worthy of the name is happy for bowlers to target the pads. Cheers RowiE

Hi DaveJ thanks for your considered comments. I think you have contrived the LBW rationale in hindsight. There is absolutely zero historical evidence of the LBW Law being introduced because of any ability or otherwise of a batsman being able to construct a leg side defence. No law will be introduced because of this and seaming decks. That is my point, the law is a by product of other changes. My case as stated is that it is unfair and as per above, unintentional. As an aside, I would disagree in principle with your assertion that you can’t construct a defence on leg side any more than off side. E.g. as a RH batsman if you play line and it seams you either miss it or hit it when it seams away and you either miss it or it hits your pads if it seams in. What is the difference? I didn’t say that the law was because of Bodyline only that it’s impact supported the action to help get rid of it.
With leg byes, other than the fact as stated that they could potentially affect an outcome of match, which doesn’t seem to concern you, they do greatly disadvantage the bowler because the majority of leg byes are singles and that gets the batsman off strike. I don’t think I need to explain the importance of that. Your point about the ball missing leg stump anyway is not well made on any fairness scale, you infer that because your happy that the bowler gets penalised but the incompetent batsmans team get credited. My whole article is about fairness. I think your a batsman. Cheers, RowiE

Yes Nat, I think that coaches such as Bellamy, Bennett, Stewart, Hasler etc are not only very good tactically but they or whoever they employ are masters at first identifying ways to gain advantages. They don’t care if it stuffs the game for fans, which is the case for most of their defensive ideas.

Hi 3 Bags, I was just continuing TIGER’s story line. I am not anti anyone I just thought the idea was a good one. I was thinking of including a time warp fantasy game where Peter Stirling was dummy half and dived between Latrell’s legs to score. Would it be a 3 point or 4 point try? Too hard, so I deleted it. Sad. Thanks for the comment. RowiE

Hi Marty, I think I’ll just agree to disagree on this one. I do agree that Starc’s yorker is effective because sometimes it has late movement, and that he probably has a high degree of what is termed ‘natural ability’. To assert that you can’t learn late movement is like asserting you can’t learn how to bowl a wrong’un. If you can’t learn late movement, what else can’t you learn? As a coach for about 20 years, including at first grade level, I’d like to know, so that I can stop wasting my time on some skill development areas and only work on those skills that can be learnt. I think it’s a given that you have to practice etc, but the reason can’t be injury, because all new skills are learnt at slow speed, so that argument doesn’t work for me. Finite time is an issue. Perhaps these internationals could spend more time on skills and less on advertising and other time spent with promoters? Thanks for your input, I think we are on different boats here. Cheers, RowiE

Thanks Marty, agreed it’s very difficult. Not sure I can agree with the net and translating into the match difficulty, I think that applies to everything, Ravi Ashwin worked for a couple of years on his carrom ball before he was game enough to bowl it in a match. I reckon it’s a matter of persistence. If you practice it and can do it in the nets, but then can’t do it in a match, you haven’t got it mastered or you need a coach to help you understand how to deliver in the middle, under pressure.
I’m also not sure about the ‘natural ability’ proposition. I think it’s more of developing a bowling style and methodology that works for you. I agree that Hazlewood may have greater difficulty in bowling yorkers than Starc, but not because of any ‘natural ability’ it’s because he has spent the last 15 years learning how to bowl length. Regardless, you can’t just bowl length in white ball cricket as a general strategy, you’d get hammered. So Josh has to change his length and pace, why not include the yorker? I think he’s good enough, he certainly gets enough money to practice it.