when was LBW law changed? (Mad Hamish)
j sreedhar
Hi, I would like clarification about this...esp from Hamish.
I remember a post in which he mentioned that in Bradman's
time a batsman padding up outside off-stump was immune to
being dismissed LBW. I recently read in C.Levy's Hall of fame
that the same was true in late 50s as well.
Just curious as to when this particular law was changed.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
http://www.trytel.com/~chas/players/ramadhin.htm
When Sonny Ramadhin first appeared on the international cricket scene,
this small but athletic right arm wrist spin bowler was a real puzzle
to his opponents; it seemed that no one was capable of "reading"
him. Together with his "Spin Twin" partner, Alf Valentine, he
bedevilled the England batsmen in 1950 to help West Indies win their
first away series victory ever. Seven years later, however, May and
Cowdrey resorted to the device of padding up to his deliveries outside
the line of the wicket (which the lbw law at that time permitted
outside both off stump and leg stump) and thus were able to nullify
^^^^^^^^^^^
the effect of his spin; in the 1st Test at Edgbaston in 1957, Ramadhin
bowled what is a record number of balls (774) in any Test match or
first class match to little avail.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Thanks,
Sreedhar
Kevin Dustow
Dont know when it was changed but a nrecnet thing I would suggest..when I
wazs playing in the 60s and early 70s you couldnt be given out padding
outside the stumps..
Ron Knight
j-s...@students.uiuc.edu (j sreedhar) posted:
|
|Hi, I would like clarification about this...esp from Hamish.
|I remember a post in which he mentioned that in Bradman's
|time a batsman padding up outside off-stump was immune to
|being dismissed LBW. I recently read in C.Levy's Hall of fame
|that the same was true in late 50s as well.
|
|
|Just curious as to when this particular law was changed.
The change in the Laws of Cricket was adopted with the 1980 Code.
This and many other proposed changes in the LBW Law were subjects
of several Experimental Laws, and so you might find reference to being
given out LBW outside off-stump before 1980 because that match was
played under an Experimental Law, but the actual change in the Laws was
when the 1980 Code was adopted.
Take it easy,
--
Ron Knight (r...@med.unc.edu)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
I can't speak for UNC-CH, and UNC-CH can't speak for me.
It's better for both of us.
Eamon Hannan
I thought it was an experimental rule in the 75/76 series between Australia
and West Indies - I remember Greenidge being one of the first to go padding
up to Lillee I think. I thought the other main difference was the size of
the stumps which was changed sometime in the thirties.
Has anyone done an analysis of the effectiveness of bowlers and batsmen
under six and eight ball overs - one would imagine the bowlers would tire
more within an over and tend to bowl more bad balls per over.
Kevin Dustow <bea...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<5viu5g$qgl$4...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
> j-s...@students.uiuc.edu (j sreedhar) wrote:
> >
> >Hi, I would like clarification about this...esp from Hamish.
> >I remember a post in which he mentioned that in Bradman's
> >time a batsman padding up outside off-stump was immune to
> >being dismissed LBW. I recently read in C.Levy's Hall of fame
> >that the same was true in late 50s as well.
> >
> >
> >Just curious as to when this particular law was changed.
> >
Stephen A Devaux
In <01bcc1d5$91307c80$5bdd6682@ejhannan> "Eamon Hannan"
<ejha...@mail.powerup.com.au> writes:
>
>I thought it was an experimental rule in the 75/76 series between
Australia
>and West Indies - I remember Greenidge being one of the first to go
padding
>up to Lillee I think. I thought the other main difference was the size
of
>the stumps which was changed sometime in the thirties.
Not implemented universally until after the war.
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Karthik Vaidyanathan
j-s...@students.uiuc.edu (j sreedhar) writes:
>Hi, I would like clarification about this...esp from Hamish.
>I remember a post in which he mentioned that in Bradman's
>time a batsman padding up outside off-stump was immune to
>being dismissed LBW. I recently read in C.Levy's Hall of fame
>that the same was true in late 50s as well.
<Laws Stuff deleted>
On a related note, why isn't padding outside leg stump considered for LBW ( I mean, what's the motivation behind having the law for outside off stump alone?) Left arm spinners or right arm leg spinners often go for the rough outside the leg stump and right handed batsmen ( Javed Miandad comes to my mind), just pad these wicket taking balls away. It's just not fair!! Please enlighten this ignorant soul..
--
Karthik
Ron Knight
car...@engg.ksu.edu (Karthik Vaidyanathan) posted:
|On a related note, why isn't padding outside leg stump considered for LBW
|( I mean, what's the motivation behind having the law for outside off
|stump alone?) Left arm spinners or right arm leg spinners often go for the
|rough outside the leg stump and right handed batsmen ( Javed Miandad
|comes to my mind), just pad these wicket taking balls away. It's just not
|fair!! Please enlighten this ignorant soul.. |--
|Karthik
Well, one can quarrel about the details and make adjustments, but the
general principle answering your question is that the Batsman has to
be allowed to stand SOMEwhere.
Don Oslear, in the Wisden Book of Cricket Laws, describes an Experimental
Law that was in effect in New Zealand (at least) during the early
eighties, allowing LBWs on the leg side under the same conditions as
on the off (no attempt made to play a stroke), IF the ball was delivered
from the other side of the stumps from where the Batsman was standing.
That is a right-handed Batsman could be out LBW to a ball that pitched
on the leg side of his wicket if it was delivered by a right-arm Bowler
bowling over the wicket or a left-arm Bowler bowling round the wicket,
but not by a Bowler bowling from the same side as the Batsman was
standing.
This seems fair to me (and no doubt would also to Shane Warne), since
it avoids the principal danger of generally allowing LBWs on the leg-
side: that Bowlers would simply target the Batsmen's legs. Imagine,
if you are a right-handed Batsman, a right-armed Bowler of tremendous
pace bowling round the wicket in such a way that the path of his delivery
is straight from his hand to your legs to your stumps. You would be
pinned against the wicket; it would be difficult to lay bat on the ball
because your legs would be in the way, and if you couldn't lay bat
on the ball your choices would be between being out LBW and out Bowled,
if the Law allowed LBWs on the leg side in general.
It may seem unfair to eliminate LBW as a weapon for leg-break Bowlers,
but every different method of bowling has its strengths and weakness,
and its ways in which it is likely to get a Batsman out and not likely
to get a Batsman out. Bowling in an attempt to get the Batsman out
caught behind or in the slips is not likely to result in the Batsman
being out, Bowled, or out, LBW, because the ball is not generally
aimed at the stumps. If you choose to bowl in this way you give up
most chances of getting a dismissal by Bowled or LBW. It is useless
for you to claim that by bowling this way you are unfairly deprived
of a chance to bowl down the Batsman's wicket, so the stumps should
be made six feet high and four feet wide so that you can continue
bowling the same way and still have a chance to hit the wicket.
Similarly if you bowl blistering pace you can't complain that you
are being deprived of stumping opportunities and the Wicket-Keeper
should be allowed a string connecting his toe with the stumps so
he can pull them down after he gathers the ball, because it is
unfair to deprive him of stumping chances just because you are
bowling fast.
My point being that if you choose to bowl leg-breaks you are not going
to get many LBWs, and that is what you know when you choose to bowl
that way. Leg-breaks are to get wickets in other ways. It may look unfair
to you that a good leg-break Bowler doesn't get many LBWs, but it
is not intrinsically unfair any more than that a pace Bowler doesn't
get many stumpings or a Bowler trying to get an edge doesn't get
many LBWs. The conditions of play and the Laws are set, and if one
chooses to bowl in a way that minimizes the chances of a certain type
of dismissal under those conditions, it is dwelling on the negative
to deem this unfair; presumably there are some compensating positive
reasons to choose to bowl this way, or else the Bowler is just being
pig-headed.
Mad Hamish
On 15 Sep 1997 03:32:26 GMT, j-s...@students.uiuc.edu (j sreedhar) wrote:
>
>Hi, I would like clarification about this...esp from Hamish.
>I remember a post in which he mentioned that in Bradman's
>time a batsman padding up outside off-stump was immune to
>being dismissed LBW. I recently read in C.Levy's Hall of fame
>that the same was true in late 50s as well.
o.k. the (brief) story on the LBW law this century.
from 1888 onwards the rule was such that the batsman could only be out lbw if
the ball pitched in line between the stumps.
In 1935 a trial law was introduced where the striker could be given out provided
that the ball struck the batsman between wicket and wicket _even_ if the ball
pitched outside off stump. This apparently became a law in 1937.
In 1970 an experimental law was brought in to provide that if the striker made
no genuine attempt to play the ball he could be given out LBW even though the
point of contact was outside the off stump.
This became an _ACTUAL_ LAW in 1980.
I'm not sure at what levels the experimental law was used at, but enough people
have said that Greenidge was given out this way to suggest that it was used in
at least some test series.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Mad Hamish
On 15 Sep 1997 12:38:20 GMT, "Eamon Hannan" <ejha...@mail.powerup.com.au>
wrote:
>I thought it was an experimental rule in the 75/76 series between Australia
>and West Indies - I remember Greenidge being one of the first to go padding
>up to Lillee I think. I thought the other main difference was the size of
>the stumps which was changed sometime in the thirties.
>Has anyone done an analysis of the effectiveness of bowlers and batsmen
>under six and eight ball overs - one would imagine the bowlers would tire
>more within an over and tend to bowl more bad balls per over.
>
Tom Richardson's comments on balls per over "Give me _ten_!"
Many bowlers I've read of thought that the 8 ball overs gave them more time to
work on a batsman and set them up/trick them out. I don't think that the extra
couple of balls is that much of a worry for tiredness. Of course I could be
wrong.
Paul Husbands
In message <5vjrev$qje$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>
r...@med.unc.edu (Ron Knight) writes:
Ron - Hi sorry about this but did you actually mean
a right handed batsman can be out to a left-arm OVER or a right-arm
AROUND if the ball pitched outside the line of leg stump - this would
seem to make more sense to me being a left arm over bowler who would
get a hell of a lot more lbw decisions for balls pitching outside of
leg but carrying on to hit the stumps. In which case I am all for the
law to be changed <g>.
Regards
Paul
j sreedhar
Paul Husbands <paul.h...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>In message <5vjrev$qje$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>
> r...@med.unc.edu (Ron Knight) writes:
>Ron - Hi sorry about this but did you actually mean
>a right handed batsman can be out to a left-arm OVER or a right-arm
>AROUND if the ball pitched outside the line of leg stump - this would
>seem to make more sense to me being a left arm over bowler who would
>get a hell of a lot more lbw decisions for balls pitching outside of
>leg but carrying on to hit the stumps. In which case I am all for the
>law to be changed <g>.
>Regards
>Paul
no, he meant that the bowler should be bowling from the OPPOSITE side
to the batsman. This is the experimental law he said was tried out in NZ
in early 80s...
Sreedhar
Ron Knight
j-s...@students.uiuc.edu (j sreedhar) posted:
Sreedhar understands my description correctly. I have no doubt, Paul,
that you would be able to get many more LBWs bowling left arm over the
wicket at right-handed Batsmen, if leg-side LBWs were generally allowed.
Everybody else would, too, bowling from there, because they would have
the Batsman pinned against the stumps and give him no place he could
stand. As I said in my original post, this may not seem to a slow
Bowler to be unfair to the Batsman, but if the Bowler had serious pace
the Batsman would be more worried about defending his legs than about
making a stroke, which would (IMHO and evidently in the O of many others)
unfairly handicap the Batsman and make a travesty of trying to bat.
But a pace Bowler bowling from the side opposite the Batsman would never
get any leg-side LBWs, the same as now, while the Experimental Law would
allow leg-break bowlers a shot at at least getting more than they do
now, if they bowl from the opposite side.