Leg before wicket is one of the most contentious dismissals in the game of cricket. One side always feels let down because so much depends upon the "opinion of the umpire"! And the advent of technological gadgets like ball tracking and virtual imagery has made an umpire's job already tough enough without having to rely on his personal judgement to give a verdict which then would be dissected from all angles for correctness as well as fairness!
A recent suggestion by former Australian captain Ian Chappell to completely overhaul the LBW laws does make a lot of sense and is definitely worth a serious look by the MCC, guardians of the laws of cricket, as well as ICC.
Chappell wants the point of impact, spot where ball landed and whether a stroke was attempted or not ... all done away with. He says the only thing that should matter is whether the delivery was going on to hit the stumps or not.
He does have a point. His fellow Australian Shane Warne's much celebrated "ball of 20th century" that clattered into then England captain Mike Gatting's stumps around his legs would have come to nought if the batsman's pad had got involved. The ball certainly pitched outside leg, ruling out even an appeal for a leg before dismissal.
Interestingly if Gatting had chosen to play the reverse sweep and still missed but ball hit his pads, the decision would have still gone in his favour even though he had deliberately changed his stance. Bowler must inform the umpire, who in turn tells the batsman, whether its left or right arm and if its going to be over or around the stumps! Its sacrosanct and can only be changed after informing the umpire all over again.
The extra protection against LBWs was added for the batsmen who had to play on uncovered wickets where the ball did plenty. But in these days of covered wickets and neutral umpires, the additional safety features appear to be putting bowlers in a strait-jacket, being denied the option of a fully legitimate angle of attack.
Bat should be the only implement that a batsman can legitimately use. Pads and other pieces of protective gear are just that ... to safeguard a player from incurring physical harm through impact by a cricket ball. Pads can never be allowed as defence, something that is almost the norm when facing leg spinners trying to turn the ball back into the batsman!
It needs a quick eye and smart footwork to change the line of attack or defence, as the case may be. It's only fair that the bowler who can give the ball enough of a tweak to bring it crashing back into the stumps deserves a better deal.
Change would make batsmen wary of padding up to deliveries and make them bolder with their stroke-play.
Game of cricket is all about scoring runs but giving bowlers a fair chance will make the contest between bat and ball more interesting!
A recent suggestion by former Australian captain Ian Chappell to completely overhaul the LBW laws does make a lot of sense and is definitely worth a serious look by the MCC, guardians of the laws of cricket, as well as ICC.
Chappell wants the point of impact, spot where ball landed and whether a stroke was attempted or not ... all done away with. He says the only thing that should matter is whether the delivery was going on to hit the stumps or not.
He does have a point. His fellow Australian Shane Warne's much celebrated "ball of 20th century" that clattered into then England captain Mike Gatting's stumps around his legs would have come to nought if the batsman's pad had got involved. The ball certainly pitched outside leg, ruling out even an appeal for a leg before dismissal.
Interestingly if Gatting had chosen to play the reverse sweep and still missed but ball hit his pads, the decision would have still gone in his favour even though he had deliberately changed his stance. Bowler must inform the umpire, who in turn tells the batsman, whether its left or right arm and if its going to be over or around the stumps! Its sacrosanct and can only be changed after informing the umpire all over again.
The extra protection against LBWs was added for the batsmen who had to play on uncovered wickets where the ball did plenty. But in these days of covered wickets and neutral umpires, the additional safety features appear to be putting bowlers in a strait-jacket, being denied the option of a fully legitimate angle of attack.
Bat should be the only implement that a batsman can legitimately use. Pads and other pieces of protective gear are just that ... to safeguard a player from incurring physical harm through impact by a cricket ball. Pads can never be allowed as defence, something that is almost the norm when facing leg spinners trying to turn the ball back into the batsman!
It needs a quick eye and smart footwork to change the line of attack or defence, as the case may be. It's only fair that the bowler who can give the ball enough of a tweak to bring it crashing back into the stumps deserves a better deal.
Change would make batsmen wary of padding up to deliveries and make them bolder with their stroke-play.
Game of cricket is all about scoring runs but giving bowlers a fair chance will make the contest between bat and ball more interesting!
No comments:
Post a Comment