SA Footy

i reckon its about time the lb law was overhauled, imho i say if the ball hits a batsman on the pads and is going on to hit the stumps then he is out regardless of where it pitched, this referral bizzo is starting to shit me, lets cut the crap about pitching in line and if its hitting eff off your out!

You like the idea of 2 day test matches?

stampy wrote:i reckon its about time the lb law was overhauled, imho i say if the ball hits a batsman on the pads and is going on to hit the stumps then he is out regardless of where it pitched, this referral bizzo is starting to shit me, lets cut the crap about pitching in line and if its hitting eff off your out!

What a ridiculous post.

We wouldnt make 50 on the sub-continent if that type of rule applied

Watch all the leggies appear bowling wide around the wicket.

One lbw decision goes against Australia and you want to change the game.

Warne would have had 1000 wickets with that rule. I think some aspects might need tweaking, but it should still be fairly hard to get an LBW.

no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

stampy wrote:no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

No his the no. 1 authoritarian on EVERYTHING!

aha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stampy wrote:i reckon its about time the lb law was overhauled, imho i say if the ball hits a batsman on the pads and is going on to hit the stumps then he is out regardless of where it pitched, this referral bizzo is starting to shit me, lets cut the crap about pitching in line and if its hitting eff off your out!

Being a left armer, I say what a great idea.

But in reality, it would ruin the game. Will never happen.

I agree about the referral business. Can it. In cricket you win some, you lose some. If you manage to sneak a dodgy decision, thats just lucky, move on.

Keep the human element in the game.

stampy wrote:no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

No. Just call people out when they make ridiculous posts. Between yourself, mal and whufc I have my work cut out.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:

stampy wrote:no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

No. Just call people out when they make ridiculous posts. Between yourself, mal and whufc I have my work cut out.

What ridiculous post??

Grahaml wrote:Warne would have had 1000 wickets with that rule. I think some aspects might need tweaking, but it should still be fairly hard to get an LBW.

Ron Burgundy wrote:Being a left armer, I say what a great idea.

But in reality, it would ruin the game. Will never happen.

.

Agree with both parts of these posts.
Warnie would have ruined the game, not just with LBW's, but with bat-pads as well.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:

stampy wrote:no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

No. Just call people out when they make ridiculous posts. Between yourself, mal and whufc I have my work cut out.

i was actuallly calling DOOL the authority but you can wear the hat as well

I wondered what dool was. Thanks for the new cap.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:I wondered what dool was. Thanks for the new cap.

well it is very hot out there so make sure you wear it

Reviews by 3rd ump only and the howler is henceforth gone with no tactical advantage. If your good enough to bowl a ball that hits the stumps from 22 yards and tge batsman misses, you deserve an lb.

whufc wrote:

stampy wrote:no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

No his the no. 1 authoritarian on EVERYTHING!

That title belonged to red and black

Sky Pilot wrote:

whufc wrote:

stampy wrote:no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

No his the no. 1 authoritarian on EVERYTHING!

That title belonged to red and black

careful, he'll get his lawyers onto you

CENTURION wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:

whufc wrote:

stampy wrote:no TSG its not based on 1 decision, its an opinion i have had for a while, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and you get hit on the pads it is out, and dool why is it so ridiculous? are you the worlds no.1 authoritarian on cricket?

No his the no. 1 authoritarian on EVERYTHING!

That title belonged to red and black

careful, he'll get his lawyers onto you

Yeah I will pull my head in!

The only thing that should be changed is that, it should be if the umpire gives it out and a part of the ball is pitching in line it should be out. Like today, part of the ball was on line