SA Footy

In the history of cricket in general, most rules changes have tended to benefit the batsman.

Ever since Fred "The Demon" Spofforth and his like worked out how to bowl overarm, and managed to get a bit of pace up, the batsmen have been getting more and more favourable treatment.

Leg Theory was banned because the nancy boys couldn't take the pressure. (It probably made for boring cricket too, but for the sake of argument...)

The ball pitching outside leg stump can't get an LBW, as the poor batsmen were getting out to it.

Multiple bouncers were banned because the Windies were too good at it. Even after helmets and full body armour were invented.

Bats have gradually improved, to the point where even the inside bottom corner of the bat seems to be the sweet spot.

Covered pitches, better curators, smoother outfields, rope boundaries, blah blah blah blah, you get the picture.

The only laws I can think of to aid bowlers are the one that helped The Chucker, namely the 15 degree elbow law, and the law regarding LBW's and the full toss - treat it as going straight on.

Now we have technology in the form of Hawkeye, and referrals using the UDRS.

I'm thinking that on balance, this might help the bowlers overall. The thing I'm particularly noticing is the effect of Hawkeye on the mind of the umpire. In most of my cricket viewing life, a ball thundering in to leg stump has been called as not out, slipping down leg. Now, it seems that plenty of them are getting fired. If it goes to the UDRS and it's just clipping the stumps, it's still "umpire's decision", and given out.

So what do you reckon? Are the technology changes giving the workhorse a benefit over the show pony for once?

Interesting - do they benefit, yes somewhat. Do they benefit as much as batsman - don't know.

The new ball also helped the bowlers.

Pottsy wrote:The ball pitching outside leg stump can't get an LBW, as the poor batsmen were getting out to it.

I'm interested in the history and thinking behind this rule because I never understood why it existed.
Why can't you be LBW if it pitches outside leg ?
If it pitches outside, hits in line and it's going to hit the stumps, why is it any different ?
It might stop this padding away rubbish we see during some test matches.

smithy wrote:

Pottsy wrote:The ball pitching outside leg stump can't get an LBW, as the poor batsmen were getting out to it.

I'm interested in the history and thinking behind this rule because I never understood why it existed.
Why can't you be LBW if it pitches outside leg ?
If it pitches outside, hits in line and it's going to hit the stumps, why is it any different ?
It might stop this padding away rubbish we see during some test matches.

Think it might have been brought in to STOP negative leg side bowling to packed leg side fields hence the rule and also restrictions of no. of fielders on leg side and a limit of 2 behind square leg.

smithy wrote:

Pottsy wrote:The ball pitching outside leg stump can't get an LBW, as the poor batsmen were getting out to it.

I'm interested in the history and thinking behind this rule because I never understood why it existed.
Why can't you be LBW if it pitches outside leg ?
If it pitches outside, hits in line and it's going to hit the stumps, why is it any different ?
It might stop this padding away rubbish we see during some test matches.

Yeah I've always thought the same thing. If the ball is going to hit the stumps it should be out no matter what!

Agree doesnt matter where it pitches as long as its going to hit.

jackpot jim wrote:

smithy wrote:

Pottsy wrote:The ball pitching outside leg stump can't get an LBW, as the poor batsmen were getting out to it.

I'm interested in the history and thinking behind this rule because I never understood why it existed.
Why can't you be LBW if it pitches outside leg ?
If it pitches outside, hits in line and it's going to hit the stumps, why is it any different ?
It might stop this padding away rubbish we see during some test matches.

Think it might have been brought in to STOP negative leg side bowling to packed leg side fields hence the rule and also restrictions of no. of fielders on leg side and a limit of 2 behind square leg.

Yep. Phil Tufnell and Ashley Giles would be giants of the game if this law hadn't come into effect.

With the leg side fielding restrictions, I thought it was an advantage to the batsmen if the bowlers bowl legside.
Sightscreens were also brought in for the batsmen.
With the ridiculous calling of wides when it just misses the leg stump, it might as well be t-ball in the 20/20's and 1 dayers.

I know that the not offering a shot rule was brought in to stop batsmen just sticking their pad in the way.


I think bowlers now have more understanding how the science behind swing bowling. I have read Michael Slater's book and he said that during that drought breaking Indian Tour where Punter missed with a broken finger they refined it down to only certain people touching the ball getting it back to the bowler. This prevented unnecessary moisture getting into the leather via the sweaty palms and hence Slats was banned from touching it unnecessarily as he was a sweaty palms bloke.