Dutchy wrote:Ok I got the delivery wrong, it was over the wicket...anyway I still think it was very close, as did the umpire it seems
And its only my opinion that the rule should change if you dont play a shot you should lose the benefit of the doubt...you have a bat use it
Fair enough. Personally i think the rule is fine as it is. If there is doubt as to whether a batsman is out in any fashion the batsman should always get the benefit of that doubt IMHO.
i disagree if you pad up and get given out lbwyou can have no complaints as afar as im concerned
people on here have been going on about how hard it has been to take wickets and the pitches are all roads well here is a way to put some advantage back to the bowlers
Well that's not the rule so what you are advocating is a rule change.
Dutchy wrote:Ok I got the delivery wrong, it was over the wicket...anyway I still think it was very close, as did the umpire it seems
And its only my opinion that the rule should change if you dont play a shot you should lose the benefit of the doubt...you have a bat use it
Fair enough. Personally i think the rule is fine as it is. If there is doubt as to whether a batsman is out in any fashion the batsman should always get the benefit of that doubt IMHO.
i disagree if you pad up and get given out lbwyou can have no complaints as afar as im concerned
people on here have been going on about how hard it has been to take wickets and the pitches are all roads well here is a way to put some advantage back to the bowlers
Well that's not the rule so what you are advocating is a rule change.
not really cos the batsman getting the benefit of the doubt isnt an official rule anywhere
True "benefit of the doubt" is not mentioned in exact terms but you will find that the MCC do say in relation to the umpire that "if he cannot be sure the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps, he cannot support the appeal".
Really just a different way of saying he should give the batsman the benefit of the doubt.
