Proposed Rule Changes

[Punk Rooster]

Am I an orphan in thinking that the LBW rule should be adjusted, so that a ball pitching outside leg (& meeting all the other criteria) may be given out? I would probably suggest that the bowler would need to be bowling over the wicket. It just seems an illogical reason not to give someone out, given that if the ball pitched in the same spot to a batsmen of a different persuasion, then it would be out. Thoughts?

[redandblack]

Yes, you are:)

[Ian]

Am I an orphan in thinking that the LBW rule should be adjusted, so that a ball pitching outside leg (& meeting all the other criteria) may be given out? ........................................................................................................................................................................ Thoughts?

Yep

[brent]

yeah.


agreed it is illogical given that the ball would have hit the stumps but it would open the door to some very negative bowling and ugly cricket

[Punk Rooster]

All you non-erudites are missing the point *sigh* If the ball is going to hit the stumps, why should it matter where it's pitched? So pitching outside leg is negative? Shane Warne is the world's greatest negative bowler then! Why should pie-chucker Murrulidiran, have an advantage over God's gift to cricket? If it's pitched on leg, is that negative? I think there needs to be some deeper thinking here. Think outside the square, and/or/if present me with a rational argument why the likes of Warnie should be punished.