Things that give u the hit list ....

[mal]

Leg Byes
Bowler who defeats the batsman, hits him on the helmet, and it costs his team runs

[mal]

Fieldsman who hits the stump with his return
Overthrows as the fielders backing up are outa position

Should be a Dead Ball ?

[brod]

Leg Byes
Bowler who defeats the batsman, hits him on the helmet, and it costs his team runs

MAL = Damien Fleming?

[rod_rooster]

Fieldsman who hits the stump with his return
Overthrows as the fielders backing up are outa position

Should be a Dead Ball ?

This one i disagree with. Take the chance, cop the consequences i reckon.

[smithy]

Fieldsman who hits the stump with his return
Overthrows as the fielders backing up are outa position

Should be a Dead Ball ?

This one i disagree with. Take the chance, cop the consequences i reckon.

Agree, Otherwise Michael Clarke will do a shoulder before lunch of every test match

[rod_rooster]

Fieldsman who hits the stump with his return
Overthrows as the fielders backing up are outa position

Should be a Dead Ball ?

This one i disagree with. Take the chance, cop the consequences i reckon.

Agree, Otherwise Michael Clarke will do a shoulder before lunch of every test match

Lol, he does like a shy at the stumps

[gadj1976]

the referral system. I don't think it's added anything to the game itself.

[Adelaide Hawk]

Excessive and frivolous appealing, as well as the cry of "catch it" for anything not played straight into the ground, whether there's a fielder in place or not. I sometimes wonder if bowlers actually know where their field is.

As far as the referral system is concerned, "How do I hate thee, let me count the ways".

[mal]

Leg Byes
Bowler who defeats the batsman, hits him on the helmet, and it costs his team runs

2 days later it happens again
Umar Gul trys to evade a Doug Bollinger bouncer and gets hit flush on the helmet
Result 4 Leg Byes

What the ?

Didnt hit his leg
Didnt play a shot
And yet it is deemed 4 Leg Byes

Is this the absolute most disgraceFOOL rule in cricket

Just think about
Doug declieved Umar and Pakistan get gifted 4 runs

BULLCRAPP

[jackpot jim]

Leg Byes
Bowler who defeats the batsman, hits him on the helmet, and it costs his team runs

2 days later it happens again
Umar Gul trys to evade a Doug Bollinger bouncer and gets hit flush on the helmet
Result 4 Leg Byes

What the ?

Didnt hit his leg
Didnt play a shot
And yet it is deemed 4 Leg Byes

Is this the absolute most disgraceFOOL rule in cricket

Just think about
Doug declieved Umar and Pakistan get gifted 4 runs

BULLCRAPP

MAL - There are 3 sticks in the ground with a couple of twigs on them to aim at as a bowler.
If you bowl the bowl at them and the batsmen misses the ball, the ball either crashes into the stumps and the batsman is OUT or if the ball hits the batsman, he is OUT LBW.

SIMPLE, bowl the ball at the stumps and you having nothing to complain about.

If the bowler bowls the ball at the batsmans' head, then they cop the consequences.

[Adelaide Hawk]

MAL - There are 3 sticks in the ground with a couple of twigs on them to aim at as a bowler.
If you bowl the bowl at them and the batsmen misses the ball, the ball either crashes into the stumps and the batsman is OUT or if the ball hits the batsman, he is OUT LBW.

SIMPLE, bowl the ball at the stumps and you having nothing to complain about.

If the bowler bowls the ball at the batsmans' head, then they cop the consequences.

JJ. just out of curiosity ... have you ever been a bowler?

[jackpot jim]

MAL - There are 3 sticks in the ground with a couple of twigs on them to aim at as a bowler.
If you bowl the bowl at them and the batsmen misses the ball, the ball either crashes into the stumps and the batsman is OUT or if the ball hits the batsman, he is OUT LBW.

SIMPLE, bowl the ball at the stumps and you having nothing to complain about.

If the bowler bowls the ball at the batsmans' head, then they cop the consequences.

JJ. just out of curiosity ... have you ever been a bowler?

Yes, i have bowled a bit over the decades.
I fully understand what Mals on about and i dont entirely disagree with him, it's just that leg byes have always been in the rules as we've known them and to keep tradition, i see no real need to change it.

Also, spare a thought for umpires if leg byes WERN'T scored as runs, all those little tickles down leg side, were they / wern't they off the pad or bat; Just another tough decision umpires would have to make. By giving them ALL runs, it doesn't really matter to the result of the game, only the individual matter of if the runs were credited to the batsman or the sundries.

[smac]

Mal, the issue I have with that particular decision is that the batsman must be deemed to be trying to avoid the ball for leg byes to be counted. I have issue with 'turning around and letting it hit you in the head' being counted as trying to avoid the ball. The rule when applied correctly is pretty spot on.

[jackpot jim]

I think one rule that should be changed is OUTLAWING the use of runners for batsmen.
It's one of those GENTLEMANLY rules imo from way back but i think it's totally unnecessary these days.
Think about it, a bowler breaks down, the fielding team is one bowler short, a batsman breaks down, he can use a runner. Not really fair i would've thought.

[rod_rooster]

Mal, the issue I have with that particular decision is that the batsman must be deemed to be trying to avoid the ball for leg byes to be counted. I have issue with 'turning around and letting it hit you in the head' being counted as trying to avoid the ball. The rule when applied correctly is pretty spot on.

The thing that bothers me about that if the batsman is trying to avoid the ball, hence making no attempt to score from it, why should a score be registered? If anything the batsman has failed in his objective to avoid the ball and not score yet his team benefits with runs. Makes very little sense. The issue of whether leg byes should be awarded when a player is attempting a stroke and therefore to score is a different matter to whether they should be awarded when a player is deemed to be attempting to avoid the ball. I can see no valid argument for giving runs in that situation.

[jackpot jim]

Mal, the issue I have with that particular decision is that the batsman must be deemed to be trying to avoid the ball for leg byes to be counted. I have issue with 'turning around and letting it hit you in the head' being counted as trying to avoid the ball. The rule when applied correctly is pretty spot on.

The thing that bothers me about that if the batsman is trying to avoid the ball, hence making no attempt to score from it, why should a score be registered? If anything the batsman has failed in his objective to avoid the ball and not score yet his team benefits with runs. Makes very little sense. The issue of whether leg byes should be awarded when a player is attempting a stroke and therefore to score is a different matter to whether they should be awarded when a player is deemed to be attempting to avoid the ball. I can see no valid argument for giving runs in that situation.

Yep, cant disagree with that.

[bayman]

stop being like the afl by trying to ruin the game by constant rule changes, leave it as it is ffs.....otherwise we could get into the stage of having a 11 man fielding team & then an 11 man batting team for the one team

[rod_rooster]

stop being like the afl by trying to ruin the game by constant rule changes, leave it as it is ffs.....otherwise we could get into the stage of having a 11 man fielding team & then an 11 man batting team for the one team

I haven't suggested they change the rule, all i have said is that it makes no sense. Do i want to see the end of leg byes? No. Do i think the quirk in the law that says if a batsman is attempting to avoid the ball it is deemed as playing a stroke is stupid? Yes.

I'm not saying the law should be changed i'm just pointing out how stupid it is. For what it's worth i don't agree with how often they chop and change the rules in the AFL but sometimes they have got it right. Once upon a time they didn't have the out on the full rule. Probably a reasonable example of one change that was for the good. Perhaps slightly tinkering with the Leg Byes rule might actually be a good thing. How often have the rules of cricket been modified? It is a very very rare occurance*.

*When i mention cricket i mean cricket and not limited overs forms of the game which are not really cricket.

[Adelaide Hawk]

I fully understand what Mals on about and i dont entirely disagree with him, it's just that leg byes have always been in the rules as we've known them and to keep tradition, i see no real need to change it.

Also, spare a thought for umpires if leg byes WERN'T scored as runs, all those little tickles down leg side, were they / wern't they off the pad or bat; Just another tough decision umpires would have to make. By giving them ALL runs, it doesn't really matter to the result of the game, only the individual matter of if the runs were credited to the batsman or the sundries.

I guess I'm just agreeing with what most have posted, but I think if a batsman is playing a legitimate shot, i.e. leg glance, and the ball flicks his pads, I have no real problem with runs being scored, even though the bowler has beaten the bat.

Gul, having taken his eyes off the ball, was not making any real attempt to avoid the ball hitting him, and therefore no runs should be awarded. It has become a grey area since the introduction of helmets in particular, and other protective garments in general. Batsmen get themselves behind the ball, change their minds at the last moment, and get struck.

In the days of no helmets, there was no way the batsman would have just taken his eyes off the ball, he would have kept an eye on it and ducked underneath it. Very few batsmen were hit flush in those days, most of the times a batsman got hit in the head was when a ball deflected from an edge.

Maybe they don't need to alter the rule, but I think they should clearly define a batsman's intent when it comes to "taking evasive action".

[mal]

Steve Waugh once said b4 he retired
"" I dont think you should get runs when you miss the ball."

OK im not happy with Leg Byes morally
Ive had this discussion with Jackpot Jim at Adelaide Oval one day
JJ suggested that it makes umpiring guess work as to inside edges or the actual hitting of the pad too hard
Umpires have far to much else to worry about
So I accepted JJs rationality

The LEG BYE LAW is
Leg byes may only be scored if the ball hits the batsman while the batsman was either
Attempting to hit the ball with his bat, or
Attempting to evade being hit by the ball

The law states the 4 leg byes are within the laws of cricket [despite a futile attempt to evade the ball]

But when a batsman turns his back on the bowler and gets zapped that should be called a DEAD BALL
Unlike leg byes where an ump needs to adjudicate inside edge or hit the pad several times a game, this is different
Different because batters getting hit on the head is a very very occasional occurence, perhaps once a series on average ?