See this here in the guardian has got me thinking:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/mar/25/breaking-the-law-lbw-dismissal-cricket-rule
At first I thought it was ridiculous, but the more I thought about it the more I realised that the current law is silly and inconsistent and there is no good reason for the asymmetry, either historical (in 1888 we were 2 votes away from only the direction of the ball mattering) or for cricketing reasons.
There are a lot of comments that complain that it would introduce negative bowling and/or every bowler would start going round the wicket, but I really don't think the arguments stack up.
It IS strange and inconsistent that the exact same ball can be heading for middle stump, the batman misses it and it thumps straight into his pad, and just because the bowler is bowling round the wicket rather than over the wicket, it is judged to pitch 2 inches outside leg stump rather than 2 inches outside off stump and he is given a reprieve.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/mar/25/breaking-the-law-lbw-dismissal-cricket-rule
At first I thought it was ridiculous, but the more I thought about it the more I realised that the current law is silly and inconsistent and there is no good reason for the asymmetry, either historical (in 1888 we were 2 votes away from only the direction of the ball mattering) or for cricketing reasons.
There are a lot of comments that complain that it would introduce negative bowling and/or every bowler would start going round the wicket, but I really don't think the arguments stack up.
It IS strange and inconsistent that the exact same ball can be heading for middle stump, the batman misses it and it thumps straight into his pad, and just because the bowler is bowling round the wicket rather than over the wicket, it is judged to pitch 2 inches outside leg stump rather than 2 inches outside off stump and he is given a reprieve.
