I think the rule is fine until the batter switches grips. i.e. reverse sweeps and pulls where the batter changes stance and grip to suddenly be an opposite hander. Then it is game on. Current rules means batsmen are immune to pitching outside leg because it pitched outside leg to the batsmen no matter where it lands
I agree. The game has evolved so the laws should evolve with it. Switch hit has given the batter another option, so leg side should be switched when they play such a stroke.
I don't agree completely... As the batter switches the grip, they are risking their time, and also a potential wide ball will be given as legal delivery. And also by switching grip batter is not in control to play the same as regular grip. They have the most chance to play 'across' as it comes naturally. If the batter holds reverse grip at the time of runup the bowlers can see that easily and pitch wide off. A batter gets one wicket but the bowler never gets out. I think it is fair to make the batter immune to pitching the leg side.
Absolutely there shouldn’t be any leg side wide when a batter does a switch hit. I’d almost argue no wides unless the ball goes off the pitch cause switch hits are negative batting, just like negative leg side bowling
It’s actually simple. Batters cover the wicket in his natural position when it pitched outside leg-stump hence not out. It’s his natural position and not an attempt to cover the wicket on purpose, in this case it’s bowlers choice to bowl outside leg stump deliberately cover the wicket from batters leg. When it’s pitched in line or off side, then covered from the leg means it’s not from his natural position but have come to the line to cover the wicket so it’s batter’s choice to cover the wicket this time hence out.
Really, impressive. I have been playing cricket since childhood, but i also got confused sometimes in LBW decisions. Thankyou brother, today you cleared my the doubt regarding LBW. Keep bringing such quality content with easy explanation!
If they allow outside leg lbw there will be no way to stop negative bowling in test cricket For t 20 maybe it is ok because if you miss its called a wide (still shouldnt be changed in my opinion as ot becomes very difficult to play) I think outside leg pitching should only be allowed if the batsman attempts a switch hit
playing towards on side or you legside is comparitively easier than off side . There is no point of negative bowling . And if you that then continuosly bowling at 5 or 6 stump line is also negative bowling . Why to favour one side mate . C'mon Grow Up
I'm also of the opinion that, in the modern game, there's no reason that the ball pitching outside the leg stump should preclude an LBW decision. The potential for stacked leg side fields and negative bowling is something they could look at preventing some other way, e.g. pitching outside leg is still automatically not out if you have more than 6 fielders on the leg side.
Why try to prevent negative bowling? More and more Batters are playing 360 shots these days. I don't think that negative bowling really matters in modern game and even if it did we gotta give something back to the bowlers. This game is tilting more and more in batters favour if we give bowlers this rule. I think it would make the game more balanced.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglishthat's because cricket is a business and the businessmen at the top of ICC, BCCI etc. know that people are more excited to see boundaries than dotballs. Yes, the audience do get excited for wickets but there are only 10 per innings. That's why there are less audience in a test match where you can see the best bowling. And that's why T20 is surpassing ODIs in its popularity, along with the shorter game time.
How about a variation like this.... Ball pitches outside leg Batsman struck in-line but NOT attempting a shot Ball would've hit wicket. If struck outside leg or a shot is offered then not out
I'm of the opinion (and a bowler myself) that the game is great how it is, even if the reasons for introducing that law are less relevant now than they were, it makes for a more interesting game and there is no need for simplification of our sport
I do feel a bit for a right arm leg spinner bowling over the wicket to a rt handed batter and pitching outside leg but turning back enough to hit the stumps.. that's not negative bowling imo. Sjanw Warne and the big turners could do rhis and i think those should be legit lbw dismissals. Of course a leggie going around the wicket is a different issue and shouldnt get the lbw pitching outside leg.
Wikipedia has quie full explanation of the lbw law and its history. In my opinion, bowling outside leg caused so much so much trouble during the bodyline series that lawmakers tried to disincentivise bowlers to try that tactic.. Later, many batsmen developed a technique of using thie front pad to prevent any ball coming back in from outside off stump bowling them out, whilst avoiding the risk of being caught, should the ball go the other way ! This was so negative and boring to watch, that law makers once again had to move.
It is ridiculous of giving not out after the ball pitching outside leg stamp and also not giving out when the impact was outside off. These rules needs to be changed by the appropriate authority.
I'm a bowler and believe Pitching outside leg should remain Not Out. It's not about the skill of the player, it's about the human physical limits. If some players exceed it or are creative, it's their strength. But rules should be for Normal human Skills and limits. Just because Cricket is now Batsmen Oriented, it doesn't mean you can make or change rules just to out a batsman (Like bowling multiple bouncers (many have died or got seriously injured), and impact outside (you can bowl very wide or outside of the bowling crease/pitch). Some rules I believe should need to be changed or updated like hitting stumps and bails not coming off, the weight of bails has increased over years and sometimes even after hard impact by balls they don't come off, if lights come off, Batsman should be out. Time out be the rule, it is still but no one appeals or if they do, they were soon requested to take their appeal off or called as Not being gentleman game. If the bowling team is not able to bowl their respective overs within time limit, they get penalized, then why not Batsman. He has enough time to get ready and come on the field in the allotted time. There are so many rules as a bowler I believe should come in favour of the bowler, but if it comes to human limitation I believe in those rules and I totally respect them.
I think the rule is fine. Out side leg stump is wide and pitching outside leg is fine. Also , there is a shot to hit an offside delivery to hit towards legside (pull, hook etc), but no standard shot to hit a leg side delivery towards off side.
You cannot keep more than 5 fields on the leg side including the bowler (if bowling from leg side) and more than 2 behind leg square. So blind view is technically correct rather than negative leg side bowling which allow the batsman to continue padding it without afraid of being given lbw
Very well said. It is up to you Indian Cricket fans to ask ICC to change the rules accordingly. Because Cricket has been unfairly changed in favour of batsman because of batting loving majority of Indian fans to cater that huge market.
I'm afraid I have to disagree, this could be one aspect but there are a lot of other factors as to why cricket is batting-friendly. BCCI does have a lot of pull in the ICC but what you are saying is just accusing an entire country of something without any substantial evidence. batting is preferred worldwide not just in India.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish I dont accuse entire India my friend. That is why I said "batting loving majority of Indian fans". Yes this is not the only reason. But definitely one of the major reasons. I agree that the game is batting favoured. But it shouldnt be to the extent that bawlers are there to provide pleasure to batting lovers. If you want to watch such a game there is a game in Sri Lanka called "Elle" where bawlers are bawling as batters whish. You can find on RUclips.
Ok got it, but I don’t really think it's because of batting-loving fans. I feel ICC is just lazy in this regard they just haven’t done research and the world also hasn’t put enough pressure on them, pro batting approach might be one of the reasons but they definitely need to look beyond it and reconsider this rule. @@lahirudarshana3704
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish👍. Anyway, thanks for addressing a question that ws in my mind for a long time and it is happy to see someone having same thoughts. "They (Batsman) should improve their batting to face such deliveries"
Maybe it should be re-examined for test matches. It's considered a wide if it goes down leg side in one dayers and t20s plus there's rules to stop stacking the legside in these forms
There is also the point that EVERYONE has an actual blind-spot at about 50 degrees off their front facing. Thus when you're standing to receive the ball there's a small area (for right handed batters) just to the left of your head where your right eye can't see because of your nose, and your left eye can't see because of this blind spot. (obviously switch for left handers!) This spot is caused by the optic nerve entering the eyeball/retina on this line. It would be a little unfair to allow any bowler to exploit this. But, as others have suggested, I think that a batter who changes his stance from right-handed to left-handed (or vice versa) in the middle of the delivery should lose any and all protections regarding this. (Note: This wouldn't apply to a batter playing a reverse sweep shot WHILE MAINTAINING HIS ORIGINAL STANCE)
I want this rule to be reconsidered, ICC has experts who know far better than someone like me so they should be able to come up with something new and better than what we have right now.
Thanks for explaining the reason behind the rule - I always wondered why they have that rule. But I agree with you - it's time they have a look at it again. I think this rule should be scrapped.
Basically agree. If a legal ball is on track to hit the stumps from anywhere, then that is not negative bowling. If anything, then the rule that the middle of the ball must hit the middle of the stump is simply ridiculous. The use of legs or pads to protect the wicket shoudl be discouraged. Batsmen should use the bat. The present rules are actually encouraging a negative approach from batsmen. Even spin bowlers that aim to bowl around a batsman's legs, should actually encourge the batsman to change his or her stance towards leg.
i mostly agree but the more than 50% of the ball hitting the stumps rule should stay and its more about DRS and Umpire's Call I have made a video about that as well ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlsi=58Ammk0ch7ooWsGV
Don't y'all wonder sometimes why this rule is not applicable for the batsman being bowled but ball pitches outside leg? For LBW ball pitching outside considered not out inspite of hitting the stumps why not for being bowled??
The point about leg-side being the blind-spot for the batsman, justifying no LBW allowed for balls pitching on leg-side, is very well made. But this rule was made presumably when cricket was still a, so called, ‘Gentle-man’s Game’. Now the game seems to have changed irrevocably. It is common now-a-days for cricket teams, at every level, to exploit every available loop-hole. A batsman who resorts to Switch-hit is doing exactly that. When this rule was made, I think cricket authorities never imagined batsmen, one day, would see switch hit as a scoring option. Since switch hit is becoming more common, at all levels, it is time to amend the rule. IMHO, the amended rule should say, the moment batsmen switches, LBW can be appealed for by the opposing team, and can be given out if ball would go on to hit the wickets. This would make the contest between bat and ball more even. This would deter most batsmen from trying switch-hits. If a batsmen tries switch hit, knowing he can get out if he misses, and succeeds in scoring runs, he deserves those runs. If he misses, he may get out. That’s how it should be. I would call such an amendment as ‘an effort to keep up with changing times’. Just my two cents.
Good explanation. But the change I would like to see is removal of the requirement that the ball must hit the batter in line with the stumps to be out. The rule - which will save a batter even if the ball would have hit the stumps - was, presumably, introduced to ensure that if someone was given out LBW there would be little doubt. But I think it should be sufficient for the Umpire to believe it is going to hit the stumps. It is especially anomalous in the modern game where DRS is used and we can see that a ball, seaming swinging, or spinning may strike outside the line, but hit the stumps.
Impact can also be improved but the wickets hitting part is always a projection with 2% error so it's not fool proof. I have made a video about that as well do check it out.ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlfeature=shared
My interpretation is that when the ball pitches outside off or in line the batsman must make a move that puts his pads between ball and wicket. But when the ball pitches outside leg it is instead action of the bowler that puts the pads between ball and wicket
I even belive impact outside off should be given out too . If a ball is hitting the stumps whether it pitches outside leg or impact is outside off it should be given out . At the end , the ball is hitting the stumps and you are preventing the ball from hitting the stumps by a external force other than your bat which you have to play the ball. It is mindless logic of Blind Spot and negative bowling. If a batsman has technical flaws in his batting he should imporve it, why to penalise the bowlers for it .
As the batter switches the grip, they are risking their time, and also a potential wide ball will be given as legal delivery. And also by switching grip batter is not in control to play the same as regular grip. They have the most chance to play 'across' as it comes naturally. If the batter holds reverse grip at the time of runup the bowlers can see that easily and pitch wide off. A batter gets one wicket but the bowler never gets out. I think it is fair to make the batter immune to pitching the leg side.
I like the pitching outside leg as a rule but the question I have never got an answer to is why does the batsman need to be hit in line to be out? If pitching outside off is fine, why isn't being hit outside off ok as long as the ball is going on to hit the stumps?
I don’t know either but it could be due to the difficulty in deciding whether or not a ball pitching outside the line would have hit the stumps. Without technology, it’s difficult enough to assess a ball hitting in line, let alone one pitching outside the line.
The history is its mainly the second reason outlined here. Back before pitching outside off was allowed (sometime in the 1930's I think but it could have been later) a ball had to pitch in line, hit the batsman in line and be going on to hit the stumps. They allowed outside off because that area provides batsmen with opportunities for scoring whereas leg side lines can be very restrictive for scoring limiting the batsman to a few more risky options for scoring. Overall a good explanation. I think the law is fine as it stands.
In my opinion those restrictions are fading away because more and more batters are developing 360 shots in every format of the game it's just a matter of few years that they utilise the leg side properly
Right.. the original rule was there to assist the umpires. It's much easier to judge the trajectory of the ball, if it's pitches in line. But when it pitches outside the line, the umpire can make an error of judgement. So, all such LBWs were ruled not out.(benefit of doubt going in favour of batsman). The rule was later modified to allow those pitching outside off still be considered LBW out. But other rules still remain.. like hitting in line with stumps, etc. Before DRS came, most umpires were reluctant to give batsman out if it hits above the knee-roll. But that has changed now. So, with better technology, the rule of pitching outside leg doesn't seem relevant. But the risk of negative bowling may still be keeping it alive.
I think it could be changed in a certain way like considering outside leg stump bowl for LBW while bowling from the off side end of the batsman. for eg - right arm bowler bowling from over the wicket to a RHB or left arm bowling over the wicket to a LHB. Well I might be wrong as there are certain other aspects as well in this (Just an opinion).
Well that explains the infamous Sachin LBW when the ball hit him in the upper arm. But no I don’t see a need for the rule to be changed, other things need to be changed to address the balance between bat and ball - like pitch standards.
I think they should keep the law but make the wicket-to-wicket line wider by 50 - 75mm on each side all you need to do is take a hundred players to line up sideways centre their shoulders with the middle wickets turn their heads to face each side of the wicket from where a bowler would bowl from and check peripheral vision mark it and take an average, batsman get way to many advantages when bowlers bowl around the wicket.
If the batsman attempts to play the ball he can only be given out LBW if the ball strikes him in line with the stumps. If he doesn't offer a shot he can be given out if the ball strikes him outside the line of the off stump if the Umpire believes the ball would have hit the stumps. It is designed to stop the batsman using his pad to block balls outside the off stump instead of using his bat.
Most bizzarr rule in cricket, when the bowl pitches on leg side of stump and the batsmen gets bowled, then why it is not given not out because according to your logic it's a blind spot right.
I think lbw is also a bowled.... And according to me there must be no need of checking pitching,impact.....just check only wicket hitting....whether it hit completly or not ......even ball must be traced even if it hit the bat first bcoz there are so many bowled happen after hitting the bat
By all means change the law, but you'll see lots of right arm round the wicket bowling (fast and slow) and left arm over from spinners. It would change the game massively and there's no reason to think it would be for the better. There would certainly be far more lbw appeals as if the game doesn't have enough already and remember the vast majority of cricket (including most professional cricket) is played without DRS.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish And I respect yours. Curious though to know whether you think that because you don't believe bowlers would change their line of attack (I would find that belief bizarre, but that's by the by) or whether you accept that they would and you actually want to play or watch cricket with them doing that?
"Blind spot" of Batsman, and secondly no way can batsman hit ball coming from leg side without the left leg (for right hand batters) or right leg (for left hand batters) coming into line of ball first before the bat comes into play. Good elucidation point for age old question. Inventors of Cricket and crichet rule makers were not stupid after all !
I agree the game favours batsmen. Besides, how many times Shane Warne has taken wickets bowling outside leg and ball going on to stumps. Check out Andrew Strauss and Mike Gatting. Both were classic two examples. There are many more. It’s time ICC re-examine this rule.
Andrew Strauss is a poor example here because he is left handed, so the ball which spun so sharply back to him in 2005 pitched well outside off stump, so would have been out if the umpire had believed it could have turned so sharply. The Gatting ball is an excellent example though. It would have been not out if he had padded up, which would seem wrong for such an amazing delivery.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish It won't be changed though because the powers that be want more fours and sixes becuase of money and advertsising, and players would play less shots if the new law was introduced.
How can the person acknowledge that the batsman leg side is his blind spot, and also that leg side bowling is negative then to say he is in favour of the rule being reviewed.
It used to be negative bowling but now you can only place a certain amount of fielders on the leg side, It is a blind spot but we do get batters out bowled from the leg side for example the ball of the century to Mike Gatting. But considering modern-day cricket and the evolution of the game in favor of batters this rule should be reviewed in my opinion. Hope that answers your question.
Whilst the explanation is very interesting, it's not entirely accurate. The origin and evolution of the rule is well documented. Originally in the non-pad era the ball had to pitch and hit the player in line with the stumps for it to be considered LBW. It made no difference whether the ball pitched outside leg or off, both were considered not out. When pads evolved in the early 20th century (1900s), the concept of pad play started to negate movement of the seam and spin. Players were deliberately using the pad to block or kick any ball not pitching in line. The law was adjusted in the 1930s to stop negative batting techniques of kicking the ball away but the change in the law intended to preserve the natural stance and protecting the player from deliberate attack on the legs. Note that this happened in close proximity to the bodyline series but I believe the LBW law change pre-dated the bodyline series.
I didn't want to document the entire thing because it would have made the video too long. Since you have posted it here, it will help people understand it more. Thanks for the proper explanation.
Bro 360 player are few and that does not mean that they can hit the ball in blind spot easily. 360 player means he can hit ball around the park but that does not mean he does not have blind spot they hit balls that are in the sight to the 360 degree any corner of the ground. If you analyse 360 shots are not solutions to blind spot balling tactics they are performed by skillful batsmen to counter the field and find the gaps and to distract bowlers line and length. You need to analyse that 360 shots are not played to counter blind spot bowling in general. The massive amounts of run people score now a days are not because they play 360 shots and scoops they are because of the improved quality of bats (if you give today's batsman thin bats like before and then try there will be very less sixes and switch hits or less boundaries in general). Still most runs are made of conventional shots. So blind spot rule is good no need to change it and bowlers have mankading they can use that😂😂 If you have the ability to understand different perspective then probably you will be able to see different point of view. I see you are hell bent in comments that this blind spot rule needs to change.😁😁 Anyway good video regardless hope to see some more videos👍👍
You made too much effort and I see what you are trying to do. You don't negate a person's next argument by assuming things, that's ignorant. Also, I don't hate your POV, it's your POV and you are entitled to that, but I will defend my stance. It's not just about the 360 shots also switch hit almost eliminates the blind spot but that's just one shot. Giving this rule to bowlers will tilt the game in bowlers favour slightly that's my main argument because this game is tilting more and more in batters favour. If this causes discomfort to batters so be it. Let them come up with something and they will, humans can and have sometimes evolved beyond their imagination but if we keep on like this we won't require bowlers anymore in the game and that's not just my opinion many people in the cricket community think that. It will just be batters against bowling machines. It's my stance and I will defend it in every comment and you are entitled to your POV. I will always be against this rule and will defend my position. Good day ☀️
No No No, if you take away the out side leg stump rule then the game became really really really boring especially the Test match where margin for wide ball is bigger, just imagine a leg spinner bowling around the wicket to a right hand batsman and pitching the ball way outside leg, it will became nightmare for the batsman. But I like what Ravi Ashwin suggested, if batsman played reverse sweep at least once in the innings then the leg side line should be given out for LBW. Game doesn't favor the batsman because of the LBW rules, its the physical things that hurting the game like 2 new balls, only 4 fielders outside 30 yard circle in middle overs, kind of pitches, the ball with little support to spinners, and the bat that batsman allowed nowadays are just ridiculous, if we want to bring the balance to the bat and ball contest those are the things we need to concentrate.
The evolution of the laws of cricket has echoes if the development of tax laws. Most tax laws exist to close loopholes of possible avoidance ("negative play"), just as various laws including this one have to be in place, because if they weren't, the game would become awful. The other obvious case is the number if fielders behind square in the legside, which was a direct response to the Bodyline Tour.
What is negative bowling? Why pitching outside OFF stump some times given not-out even if the ball hits stumps? Spinners usually pitch outside off stump but ball can turn and hit wickets. Is this to discourage spin bowlers?? Why should the contact even be inline with the stumps? As long as wickets are hitting it should be given out.
I have answered this somewhere please check it out in the comments section 🤣🤣, If you still aren't satisfied with my answer I will try my best to give you an explanation
negative bowling means putting most of your fielders on leg side and then bowling there so that you can’t get runs and if you try scoring runs you might end up getting out caught for a broad understanding you can look it up on the internet @@cegprakash
The impact is also complicated but I think you can't really tell with predictive path whether the ball was going to move that much in to hit the stumps when the impact is outside off, if it is 0-50% in line with the stumps then the umpire's call is given so basically whatever umpire thought with the naked eye in that particular moment if you want clarity on Umpire's call here's a video I made ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.html hope this answers your question.@@cegprakash
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish Thank you for your reply bro.. I saw the other video as well bro.. But I still feel spinners are in a disadvantage considering spinners and swingers who can pitch the ball within 3 metres from stump outside off stump and the impact 40cm+ from the pitching and also within 250 cms from the stumps and manage to hit the stumps.. In this case Technology gives umpires call and this is not fair for the spinners and swingers when umpires give not out and technology stays with umpires decision even though stumps fall in ball tracking? For example Shane Warne took wickets with 90 degree turns.. We would lose such bowlers in this era because of this rule. Check this spell for example: ruclips.net/video/XuG6xKT6N0s/видео.htmlsi=wftRMvV1cYH_66Yg
I've seen enough of umpires thinking they're god and calling an lbw for a ball that just might be tickling the outside of the stump or a bail. When the batsman calls for review they are given out only because of the umpires initial call. The umpires judgement can't be that good. I don't think a batsman should be give out unless the umpire is convinced that the whole of the ball is hitting the stumps, not just a part of it.
Can you explain why that a ball pitched outside leg bowls the batsman is given out but if an lbw is pitched outside leg it’s not given out? Really struggled to understand this
When talking about bowled, the ball has to hit the stumps whether it hit the stumps directly or it was deflected off of the player's bat or body doesn't matter if it hits the stumps before becoming dead(going to the keeper or other fielders ) then it's out bowled. But in LBW's case ball has to pitch either inline or outside off stump and then hit the player's body in line with the stumps and then if it is going on to hit the stumps then it is given out. In LBW ball's trajectory is followed and in bowled the ball just has to hit the stumps. These laws regarding the two are different because lbw makes a prediction and bowled can be seen. Apologies if I made it more harder for you to understand.
The more controversial part is when the ball pitches outside off stamp and hits the leg outside off stump, but would have hit the wicket, it is not out.
Imagine a ball bowled way outside the offstump. suddenly the ball hits something and deviates a long way to hit the offstump. in order to avoid this , impact rule was brought in wherein the batsman can try to play that ball. even if he misses it , it might hit him outside the stump line
gotta agree with a reformation of the rules, especially considering how spin bowling has evovled in the past twenty years. Now bowlers can spin the ball any which way, they are at a disadvantage of not being able to pitch it leg and turn it back in. And now that T20 has allowed for the creation of the 360 player, the idea of a batsmen having a "blind-spot" is fading away.
for me this rule is fine because batsman any batter cannot see well from leg side so its a fair rule . but for me the unfair is murmuring about spirit of the game When the batter is out mankand because its fair to bowler
Batters have invented switch hits, scoops basically 360 shots so even if it troubles batters for a while, they will adjust in time and this game is tilting in batters favour with every passing day. Hope, that answers your question. Cheers
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish still i believe this rule is fair. because a bowler especially pacer bowls a fast delivery from leg side then other pacers can also adapt that because they will know that they need to hit that side and batter is gone. anyways your explanation is good
No, I don't see they even think about changing this Leg Side LBW rule, mainly because of your second reason, coz that might change the course of the game, also not every Batman is good at playing leg and so it may not change for few also batsman around the globe for centuries now are used to play for the existing rule, they are hardwired for defending negative length delivery using their feet.if the leg side lbw rule comes in to play, they then there is another Pandora Box open for batsman to get out which ICC may not agree...this was the same reason why they brought umpires call in the picture otherwise in one series in srilanka vs India(Mendis wala) when DRS was taken and no umpires call or 50 Percent rule exist the batsman was given out even for brushing the stumps in the trajectory.
First of all thanks for the explanation , but still i can't understand that why there can't be an exception to this rule for example a right arm leg spinner bowling to right hand batter because in this case leg spinner with their leg spin can still get a wicket even by bowling outside the line of leg stump as there are numerous examples of that with Shane Warne classic dismissals being the prime example. And also left arm wrist spinner bowling to left hand batter same logic applies.... Any thoughts , anyone ??
I've just hit "subscribe", now I'm on the team! I guess the LBW rule should change (the ball may pitch outside the line of leg), but certain leg-side field restrictions could come into play, like the "2 behind square leg" rule. Anyhow, keep up the good work. 🏏
Well presented....could you explain why "umpire's call" is still a thing? Surely there is only 2 answers in cricket - out or not out, umpires call blurs the line and should be removed from the game imo.
It should stay it's not fool proof but it should stay in my opinion ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlfeature=shared Here's a video I made on it.
DRS was introduced to eliminate poor decisions. If they show umpire's call then it shows the decision was marginal, not poor. Ball tracking is useful, but not perfect.
Because there is margin of error in the ball tracking, therefore the Hawkeye could be wrong about the ball's trajectory by enough that it would have missed the stumps, therefore umpire's call. And there is only 2 answers, if there was no DRS the umpire would either call out, or not call out
If you can't get out LBW for outside leg, then you should be allowed to be bowled outside leg either. The ball of the century would have not been given. 😉
If the batsman is beaten to the extent that he could not protect his stumps, then he should be given out - regardless of where the ball was pitched. Another scenario is where the batsman faintly nicks the ball on to his pads and is given not out. This too should be changed to be given out as the ball would have hit the stumps, but for his pads coming in the way
The nick part is plain wrong, if someone Nicks the ball then Leg Before Wicket concept is gone, A batter can't get their body out of the way if bat is involved then the entire rule changes.
Look, however faint or strong the contact with the bat is it doesn’t matter, once the bat is involved LBW is out of question, I am not trying to make the game perfect, you can’t but there are some areas where you have to improve with time. Before 1937 pitching outside off was also considered not out but then that changed because the cricketing minds agreed that the law needed improvement@@ben1ben1ben1
I think don't fix what isn't broken. The rule helps increase drama of the game when there is a review and ensures the bowler is going after outsmarting the batsman than aiming for the stumps in the hope the batsman mistimes the ball.
@EuphoriaCricketEnglish I'm just saying that the outside off is a rule that worked since its invention so there is no reason to change it. Bowling should be about outsmarting the batsman not forcing an lbw so removing the outside off rule will eliminate that.
if the bowler is beating the batter, in a way he/she is outsmarting them, besides t20 is taking the game away from batters day by day and this rule change might benefit the game as it will make the game more bowler-friendly so let's hope ICC does something about this@@Ronakvevo
If you allow balls pitching outside leg stump to be out LBW then you would quickly see a plethora of leg spinners bowling big leg breaks and pace bowlers bowling yorkers around the wicket, at leg stump. They would be getting batsmen out for fun. This would funnel the bowling side into a very narrow and, imo, not fun tactic.
So what it would make the game much more interesting and batters will come up with a reply to this as well and I think they already have with reverse sweeps switch hit and 360 shots. Bowlers have got nothing going for them. I think this change will help even out the game to some extent.
thats still not enough, batting sides still score 300-400 easily in onedayers, bowlers have somethings going for them but the game is heavily tilted towards batters and it will tilt in their favour more and more as time passes @@Peeti-Peetu
The only rule should be, ball hitting the stump, its out. As simple as that. I donno why all the unnecessary steps. Because in a same match you get two different decisions for two different team in todays rule. This is not fair at all.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish Not pitching in line with stumps is used when a right bowler comes around to the wicket to a right handed batsmen, or a left armed bowler comes over the wicket to a right armed batsmen. In both cases to get an LBW the ball must pitch in line with the stumps. Hence "pitching in line". There is no need to consider "pitching in Line" when a right handed bowler, bowls to a right hander.
No matter which hand bowler is coming to bowl from whichever side it is about the batter's off side and leg side. This video is about why pitching outside leg is not out. So, how am I using the incorrect term. You should watch the video again.
I dont agree. Constantly bowling on pads on leg side willl increase negative bowling and take away the excellent way we are enjoying cricket. No need to ask for a change just for the sake of change. But yeah it can be done in t20s for a start. Lets no decide though. There are lot of cricket legends and i have never heard anyone asking that so there must be good reasons . Please dont act as if u are some legendary ex or present cricketer.😂😂So dont think much.
Ian Chappell said it and you don't always need to be a great cricketer to make basic observations. You are channeling your hate at the wrong place, I will make more videos and I will make them however I like them.
It's refreshing to have a new cricket channel that doesn't use AI text to speech.
Thank You for saying that 🥂
But we also got a heavy ass Indian accent instead 😢
@@tassivemitties well he's clear and articulate, so what's the issue with and Indian accent?
Don't worry in my next video I will be using crickey and mate too often to make myself look more Aussie ehh mate@@tassivemitties
Hi sarrrr,my name is amit sarrrr..@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish
I think the rule is fine until the batter switches grips. i.e. reverse sweeps and pulls where the batter changes stance and grip to suddenly be an opposite hander. Then it is game on. Current rules means batsmen are immune to pitching outside leg because it pitched outside leg to the batsmen no matter where it lands
Well said
I agree. The game has evolved so the laws should evolve with it. Switch hit has given the batter another option, so leg side should be switched when they play such a stroke.
I don't agree completely... As the batter switches the grip, they are risking their time, and also a potential wide ball will be given as legal delivery.
And also by switching grip batter is not in control to play the same as regular grip. They have the most chance to play 'across' as it comes naturally.
If the batter holds reverse grip at the time of runup the bowlers can see that easily and pitch wide off. A batter gets one wicket but the bowler never gets out.
I think it is fair to make the batter immune to pitching the leg side.
Absolutely there shouldn’t be any leg side wide when a batter does a switch hit. I’d almost argue no wides unless the ball goes off the pitch cause switch hits are negative batting, just like negative leg side bowling
@@cordlxze9559If batsmen are allowed to switch hit, why can't the bowler switch bowl?
No This Rule is excellent, A Batsman only Gets one Chance in his Innings😊😊
Let's do one thing let's give batters 3 chances
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglishIf BCCI feel so. ICC will definitely do that. 😂😂
It's not a intelligent option rethink mate @@EuphoriaCricketEnglish
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglishnot required. The current lbw rules for outside leg stump delivery is good enough.
Baaki batsmen kya jhak marayenge woh apni bazzi nhi lenge
It’s actually simple. Batters cover the wicket in his natural position when it pitched outside leg-stump hence not out. It’s his natural position and not an attempt to cover the wicket on purpose, in this case it’s bowlers choice to bowl outside leg stump deliberately cover the wicket from batters leg.
When it’s pitched in line or off side, then covered from the leg means it’s not from his natural position but have come to the line to cover the wicket so it’s batter’s choice to cover the wicket this time hence out.
A simple explanation I must say, but what is your opinion about the rule should ICC keep it or change it.
The last line he said was a pure emotion of a bowler...❤
I am a batter though, can bowl some spin but I am a keeper batter.
Really, impressive.
I have been playing cricket since childhood, but i also got confused sometimes in LBW decisions.
Thankyou brother, today you cleared my the doubt regarding LBW.
Keep bringing such quality content with easy explanation!
Glad you liked it, I will keep making content.
I've always wondered this. Even if this isn't the thinking of the writer of the Laws of Cricket,, this makes very good sense
🥂
If they allow outside leg lbw there will be no way to stop negative bowling in test cricket
For t 20 maybe it is ok because if you miss its called a wide (still shouldnt be changed in my opinion as ot becomes very difficult to play)
I think outside leg pitching should only be allowed if the batsman attempts a switch hit
the game is ever changing batters will come up with something in test cricket as well to tackle it, hope that answers your question
playing towards on side or you legside is comparitively easier than off side . There is no point of negative bowling . And if you that then continuosly bowling at 5 or 6 stump line is also negative bowling . Why to favour one side mate . C'mon Grow Up
I'm also of the opinion that, in the modern game, there's no reason that the ball pitching outside the leg stump should preclude an LBW decision. The potential for stacked leg side fields and negative bowling is something they could look at preventing some other way, e.g. pitching outside leg is still automatically not out if you have more than 6 fielders on the leg side.
Why try to prevent negative bowling? More and more Batters are playing 360 shots these days. I don't think that negative bowling really matters in modern game and even if it did we gotta give something back to the bowlers. This game is tilting more and more in batters favour if we give bowlers this rule. I think it would make the game more balanced.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglishthat's because cricket is a business and the businessmen at the top of ICC, BCCI etc. know that people are more excited to see boundaries than dotballs. Yes, the audience do get excited for wickets but there are only 10 per innings. That's why there are less audience in a test match where you can see the best bowling. And that's why T20 is surpassing ODIs in its popularity, along with the shorter game time.
Harsh truth@@JJ-hp6mb
How about a variation like this....
Ball pitches outside leg
Batsman struck in-line but NOT attempting a shot
Ball would've hit wicket.
If struck outside leg or a shot is offered then not out
I'm of the opinion (and a bowler myself) that the game is great how it is, even if the reasons for introducing that law are less relevant now than they were, it makes for a more interesting game and there is no need for simplification of our sport
Cooool! I've read about LBW in Wodehouse for decades and wondered about this. One rule down, who many knows how many, to go.
I do feel a bit for a right arm leg spinner bowling over the wicket to a rt handed batter and pitching outside leg but turning back enough to hit the stumps.. that's not negative bowling imo. Sjanw Warne and the big turners could do rhis and i think those should be legit lbw dismissals.
Of course a leggie going around the wicket is a different issue and shouldnt get the lbw pitching outside leg.
Wikipedia has quie full explanation of the lbw law and its history. In my opinion, bowling outside leg caused so much so much trouble during the bodyline series that lawmakers tried to disincentivise bowlers to try that tactic.. Later, many batsmen developed a technique of using thie front pad to prevent any ball coming back in from outside off stump bowling them out, whilst avoiding the risk of being caught, should the ball go the other way ! This was so negative and boring to watch, that law makers once again had to move.
batters will still put their foot outside the line to make sure they're not out even if hit on the pads
@@dagfinissocool - abosolutely, but they can be given out if they don;t play a stroke (as I am sure you know)
It's injustice to Left Handed bowlers. As per modern rules, Wasim Akram and Shane Warne could have 50% of their wickets
Maybe
LOL.. Shane warne was a right handed bowler..
No it is not.
It is ridiculous of giving not out after the ball pitching outside leg stamp and also not giving out when the impact was outside off. These rules needs to be changed by the appropriate authority.
If not changed then atleast looked upon
I'm a bowler and believe Pitching outside leg should remain Not Out. It's not about the skill of the player, it's about the human physical limits. If some players exceed it or are creative, it's their strength. But rules should be for Normal human Skills and limits. Just because Cricket is now Batsmen Oriented, it doesn't mean you can make or change rules just to out a batsman (Like bowling multiple bouncers (many have died or got seriously injured), and impact outside (you can bowl very wide or outside of the bowling crease/pitch). Some rules I believe should need to be changed or updated like hitting stumps and bails not coming off, the weight of bails has increased over years and sometimes even after hard impact by balls they don't come off, if lights come off, Batsman should be out. Time out be the rule, it is still but no one appeals or if they do, they were soon requested to take their appeal off or called as Not being gentleman game. If the bowling team is not able to bowl their respective overs within time limit, they get penalized, then why not Batsman. He has enough time to get ready and come on the field in the allotted time. There are so many rules as a bowler I believe should come in favour of the bowler, but if it comes to human limitation I believe in those rules and I totally respect them.
Okay
I think the rule is fine. Out side leg stump is wide and pitching outside leg is fine. Also , there is a shot to hit an offside delivery to hit towards legside (pull, hook etc), but no standard shot to hit a leg side delivery towards off side.
to each his own
You cannot keep more than 5 fields on the leg side including the bowler (if bowling from leg side) and more than 2 behind leg square. So blind view is technically correct rather than negative leg side bowling which allow the batsman to continue padding it without afraid of being given lbw
Ok, so what's your opinion regarding the rule should we change it to give batter out or keep it as it is?
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish Should not be changed. Otherwise it would be too easy for a bowler specially the spinner to trap the batter lbw.
Very well said. It is up to you Indian Cricket fans to ask ICC to change the rules accordingly. Because Cricket has been unfairly changed in favour of batsman because of batting loving majority of Indian fans to cater that huge market.
I'm afraid I have to disagree, this could be one aspect but there are a lot of other factors as to why cricket is batting-friendly. BCCI does have a lot of pull in the ICC but what you are saying is just accusing an entire country of something without any substantial evidence. batting is preferred worldwide not just in India.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish I dont accuse entire India my friend. That is why I said "batting loving majority of Indian fans". Yes this is not the only reason. But definitely one of the major reasons. I agree that the game is batting favoured. But it shouldnt be to the extent that bawlers are there to provide pleasure to batting lovers. If you want to watch such a game there is a game in Sri Lanka called "Elle" where bawlers are bawling as batters whish. You can find on RUclips.
Ok got it, but I don’t really think it's because of batting-loving fans. I feel ICC is just lazy in this regard they just haven’t done research and the world also hasn’t put enough pressure on them, pro batting approach might be one of the reasons but they definitely need to look beyond it and reconsider this rule. @@lahirudarshana3704
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish👍. Anyway, thanks for addressing a question that ws in my mind for a long time and it is happy to see someone having same thoughts. "They (Batsman) should improve their batting to face such deliveries"
Maybe it should be re-examined for test matches. It's considered a wide if it goes down leg side in one dayers and t20s plus there's rules to stop stacking the legside in these forms
It is considered wide if it misses the stumps sideways
There is also the point that EVERYONE has an actual blind-spot at about 50 degrees off their front facing. Thus when you're standing to receive the ball there's a small area (for right handed batters) just to the left of your head where your right eye can't see because of your nose, and your left eye can't see because of this blind spot. (obviously switch for left handers!)
This spot is caused by the optic nerve entering the eyeball/retina on this line. It would be a little unfair to allow any bowler to exploit this.
But, as others have suggested, I think that a batter who changes his stance from right-handed to left-handed (or vice versa) in the middle of the delivery should lose any and all protections regarding this. (Note: This wouldn't apply to a batter playing a reverse sweep shot WHILE MAINTAINING HIS ORIGINAL STANCE)
I want this rule to be reconsidered, ICC has experts who know far better than someone like me so they should be able to come up with something new and better than what we have right now.
Thanks for explaining the reason behind the rule - I always wondered why they have that rule. But I agree with you - it's time they have a look at it again. I think this rule should be scrapped.
My pleasure
Great points!!! I have often asked the question that this video answers.
Thank you
Basically agree. If a legal ball is on track to hit the stumps from anywhere, then that is not negative bowling. If anything, then the rule that the middle of the ball must hit the middle of the stump is simply ridiculous. The use of legs or pads to protect the wicket shoudl be discouraged. Batsmen should use the bat. The present rules are actually encouraging a negative approach from batsmen. Even spin bowlers that aim to bowl around a batsman's legs, should actually encourge the batsman to change his or her stance towards leg.
i mostly agree but the more than 50% of the ball hitting the stumps rule should stay and its more about DRS and Umpire's Call I have made a video about that as well ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlsi=58Ammk0ch7ooWsGV
Don't y'all wonder sometimes why this rule is not applicable for the batsman being bowled but ball pitches outside leg? For LBW ball pitching outside considered not out inspite of hitting the stumps why not for being bowled??
this argument can be used in favor as well as against this rule as well.
I used to wonder about the same thing. Thanks for giving a good explanation.
Thank you
The point about leg-side being the blind-spot for the batsman, justifying no LBW allowed for balls pitching on leg-side, is very well made. But this rule was made presumably when cricket was still a, so called, ‘Gentle-man’s Game’. Now the game seems to have changed irrevocably. It is common now-a-days for cricket teams, at every level, to exploit every available loop-hole.
A batsman who resorts to Switch-hit is doing exactly that. When this rule was made, I think cricket authorities never imagined batsmen, one day, would see switch hit as a scoring option.
Since switch hit is becoming more common, at all levels, it is time to amend the rule.
IMHO, the amended rule should say, the moment batsmen switches, LBW can be appealed for by the opposing team, and can be given out if ball would go on to hit the wickets. This would make the contest between bat and ball more even.
This would deter most batsmen from trying switch-hits. If a batsmen tries switch hit, knowing he can get out if he misses, and succeeds in scoring runs, he deserves those runs. If he misses, he may get out. That’s how it should be.
I would call such an amendment as ‘an effort to keep up with changing times’.
Just my two cents.
More like your 2 dollars. Interesting thought, I could live with this rule.
Good explanation. But the change I would like to see is removal of the requirement that the ball must hit the batter in line with the stumps to be out. The rule - which will save a batter even if the ball would have hit the stumps - was, presumably, introduced to ensure that if someone was given out LBW there would be little doubt. But I think it should be sufficient for the Umpire to believe it is going to hit the stumps. It is especially anomalous in the modern game where DRS is used and we can see that a ball, seaming swinging, or spinning may strike outside the line, but hit the stumps.
Impact can also be improved but the wickets hitting part is always a projection with 2% error so it's not fool proof. I have made a video about that as well do check it out.ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlfeature=shared
That ball by bumrah 🥶
My interpretation is that when the ball pitches outside off or in line the batsman must make a move that puts his pads between ball and wicket. But when the ball pitches outside leg it is instead action of the bowler that puts the pads between ball and wicket
It does in a way but I still stand by my opinion of changing the rule in bowler's favour. Just my opinion
I even belive impact outside off should be given out too . If a ball is hitting the stumps whether it pitches outside leg or impact is outside off it should be given out . At the end , the ball is hitting the stumps and you are preventing the ball from hitting the stumps by a external force other than your bat which you have to play the ball. It is mindless logic of Blind Spot and negative bowling. If a batsman has technical flaws in his batting he should imporve it, why to penalise the bowlers for it .
impact I'm not so sure about
As the batter switches the grip, they are risking their time, and also a potential wide ball will be given as legal delivery.
And also by switching grip batter is not in control to play the same as regular grip. They have the most chance to play 'across' as it comes naturally.
If the batter holds reverse grip at the time of runup the bowlers can see that easily and pitch wide off. A batter gets one wicket but the bowler never gets out.
I think it is fair to make the batter immune to pitching the leg side.
To each his own.
I like the pitching outside leg as a rule but the question I have never got an answer to is why does the batsman need to be hit in line to be out? If pitching outside off is fine, why isn't being hit outside off ok as long as the ball is going on to hit the stumps?
I don’t know either but it could be due to the difficulty in deciding whether or not a ball pitching outside the line would have hit the stumps. Without technology, it’s difficult enough to assess a ball hitting in line, let alone one pitching outside the line.
Even with technology there is always a margin for error.
I have explained it in this video ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlfeature=shared
The history is its mainly the second reason outlined here. Back before pitching outside off was allowed (sometime in the 1930's I think but it could have been later) a ball had to pitch in line, hit the batsman in line and be going on to hit the stumps. They allowed outside off because that area provides batsmen with opportunities for scoring whereas leg side lines can be very restrictive for scoring limiting the batsman to a few more risky options for scoring. Overall a good explanation. I think the law is fine as it stands.
In my opinion those restrictions are fading away because more and more batters are developing 360 shots in every format of the game it's just a matter of few years that they utilise the leg side properly
Right.. the original rule was there to assist the umpires. It's much easier to judge the trajectory of the ball, if it's pitches in line.
But when it pitches outside the line, the umpire can make an error of judgement. So, all such LBWs were ruled not out.(benefit of doubt going in favour of batsman).
The rule was later modified to allow those pitching outside off still be considered LBW out. But other rules still remain.. like hitting in line with stumps, etc.
Before DRS came, most umpires were reluctant to give batsman out if it hits above the knee-roll. But that has changed now.
So, with better technology, the rule of pitching outside leg doesn't seem relevant. But the risk of negative bowling may still be keeping it alive.
Le* Maxwell: for me its both😂😂
I think it could be changed in a certain way like considering outside leg stump bowl for LBW while bowling from the off side end of the batsman. for eg - right arm bowler bowling from over the wicket to a RHB or left arm bowling over the wicket to a LHB. Well I might be wrong as there are certain other aspects as well in this (Just an opinion).
No need to justify brother, you are entitled to an opinion and frankly your thought is quite interesting
On current scenario where batsman has open stands unlike old era then there is no blind spot for batsman.
true for most batters
Well that explains the infamous Sachin LBW when the ball hit him in the upper arm. But no I don’t see a need for the rule to be changed, other things need to be changed to address the balance between bat and ball - like pitch standards.
agree to disagree
I think they should keep the law but make the wicket-to-wicket line wider by 50 - 75mm on each side all you need to do is take a hundred players to line up sideways centre their shoulders with the middle wickets turn their heads to face each side of the wicket from where a bowler would bowl from and check peripheral vision mark it and take an average, batsman get way to many advantages when bowlers bowl around the wicket.
Interesting 🤔🤔🤔
Always wished for a channel like this. And it appeared. You got a sub!
Shukriya Shaikh Sahab
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish 😂
U are here for this 1:33
Not everyone knows everything about LBW that's why I explained the rules
I was taught that the batsman must have a secure place to place his feet as a reason for the rule
Well, there's no documented reason for this rule but everyone has their theories out and this is what I found on the internet.
imo the most important discussion we should be doing right now is to devise better alternatives to UMPIRES CALL in drs and not on such topics...
It's complicated but that's the best thing we got as of now
ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Here's a video I made on it.
Very informative :) Would love if you could make a video on how offering/not offering a shot by batsmen influences lbw decisions.
on it.
If the batsman attempts to play the ball he can only be given out LBW if the ball strikes him in line with the stumps.
If he doesn't offer a shot he can be given out if the ball strikes him outside the line of the off stump if the Umpire believes the ball would have hit the stumps.
It is designed to stop the batsman using his pad to block balls outside the off stump instead of using his bat.
T20 is fun to watch, but for me Test is still the pinnacle of cricket. I wish Test cricket as much enthusiasm as the shorter format of the game.
NO need for re-examination. Batting is a difficult art. Do NOT difficultiFY it further..
ok god as you say
Most bizzarr rule in cricket, when the bowl pitches on leg side of stump and the batsmen gets bowled, then why it is not given not out because according to your logic it's a blind spot right.
Sir, if you watch video till the end you will realise I am against this pitching outside notout rule
I think lbw is also a bowled....
And according to me there must be no need of checking pitching,impact.....just check only wicket hitting....whether it hit completly or not ......even ball must be traced even if it hit the bat first bcoz there are so many bowled happen after hitting the bat
It's not that simple. I have another video about DRS do check it out ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlfeature=shared
By all means change the law, but you'll see lots of right arm round the wicket bowling (fast and slow) and left arm over from spinners. It would change the game massively and there's no reason to think it would be for the better. There would certainly be far more lbw appeals as if the game doesn't have enough already and remember the vast majority of cricket (including most professional cricket) is played without DRS.
I'm still against the rule. I respect your opinion though.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish And I respect yours. Curious though to know whether you think that because you don't believe bowlers would change their line of attack (I would find that belief bizarre, but that's by the by) or whether you accept that they would and you actually want to play or watch cricket with them doing that?
Thanks Mate 🔥💯🏏🏀🏏💯🔥
You’re welcome
"Blind spot" of Batsman, and secondly no way can batsman hit ball coming from leg side without the left leg (for right hand batters) or right leg (for left hand batters) coming into line of ball first before the bat comes into play.
Good elucidation point for age old question. Inventors of Cricket and crichet rule makers were not stupid after all !
To each his own.
I agree the game favours batsmen. Besides, how many times Shane Warne has taken wickets bowling outside leg and ball going on to stumps. Check out Andrew Strauss and Mike Gatting. Both were classic two examples. There are many more. It’s time ICC re-examine this rule.
Yes, they should re-examine it at the very least.
Andrew Strauss is a poor example here because he is left handed, so the ball which spun so sharply back to him in 2005 pitched well outside off stump, so would have been out if the umpire had believed it could have turned so sharply. The Gatting ball is an excellent example though. It would have been not out if he had padded up, which would seem wrong for such an amazing delivery.
Superb and precise explanation bro. Thumbs up.
Glad you liked it!
Pitching outside leg should be given out.
Agreed
Opposite comment : Then why bold behind the legs is allowed?
I really liked your advice in last.
Thanks brother
This rule should be revoked in the modern game.
I am of the same opinion as you.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish It won't be changed though because the powers that be want more fours and sixes becuase of money and advertsising, and players would play less shots if the new law was introduced.
Unfortunate as it is this is what the game of cricket has become lately. @skippy14712
How can the person acknowledge that the batsman leg side is his blind spot, and also that leg side bowling is negative then to say he is in favour of the rule being reviewed.
It used to be negative bowling but now you can only place a certain amount of fielders on the leg side, It is a blind spot but we do get batters out bowled from the leg side for example the ball of the century to Mike Gatting. But considering modern-day cricket and the evolution of the game in favor of batters this rule should be reviewed in my opinion.
Hope that answers your question.
Whilst the explanation is very interesting, it's not entirely accurate. The origin and evolution of the rule is well documented. Originally in the non-pad era the ball had to pitch and hit the player in line with the stumps for it to be considered LBW. It made no difference whether the ball pitched outside leg or off, both were considered not out. When pads evolved in the early 20th century (1900s), the concept of pad play started to negate movement of the seam and spin. Players were deliberately using the pad to block or kick any ball not pitching in line. The law was adjusted in the 1930s to stop negative batting techniques of kicking the ball away but the change in the law intended to preserve the natural stance and protecting the player from deliberate attack on the legs. Note that this happened in close proximity to the bodyline series but I believe the LBW law change pre-dated the bodyline series.
I didn't want to document the entire thing because it would have made the video too long. Since you have posted it here, it will help people understand it more. Thanks for the proper explanation.
Bro 360 player are few and that does not mean that they can hit the ball in blind spot easily. 360 player means he can hit ball around the park but that does not mean he does not have blind spot they hit balls that are in the sight to the 360 degree any corner of the ground. If you analyse 360 shots are not solutions to blind spot balling tactics they are performed by skillful batsmen to counter the field and find the gaps and to distract bowlers line and length. You need to analyse that 360 shots are not played to counter blind spot bowling in general.
The massive amounts of run people score now a days are not because they play 360 shots and scoops they are because of the improved quality of bats (if you give today's batsman thin bats like before and then try there will be very less sixes and switch hits or less boundaries in general). Still most runs are made of conventional shots. So blind spot rule is good no need to change it and bowlers have mankading they can use that😂😂
If you have the ability to understand different perspective then probably you will be able to see different point of view. I see you are hell bent in comments that this blind spot rule needs to change.😁😁 Anyway good video regardless hope to see some more videos👍👍
You made too much effort and I see what you are trying to do. You don't negate a person's next argument by assuming things, that's ignorant. Also, I don't hate your POV, it's your POV and you are entitled to that, but I will defend my stance. It's not just about the 360 shots also switch hit almost eliminates the blind spot but that's just one shot. Giving this rule to bowlers will tilt the game in bowlers favour slightly that's my main argument because this game is tilting more and more in batters favour. If this causes discomfort to batters so be it. Let them come up with something and they will, humans can and have sometimes evolved beyond their imagination but if we keep on like this we won't require bowlers anymore in the game and that's not just my opinion many people in the cricket community think that. It will just be batters against bowling machines.
It's my stance and I will defend it in every comment and you are entitled to your POV. I will always be against this rule and will defend my position.
Good day ☀️
No No No, if you take away the out side leg stump rule then the game became really really really boring especially the Test match where margin for wide ball is bigger, just imagine a leg spinner bowling around the wicket to a right hand batsman and pitching the ball way outside leg, it will became nightmare for the batsman. But I like what Ravi Ashwin suggested, if batsman played reverse sweep at least once in the innings then the leg side line should be given out for LBW.
Game doesn't favor the batsman because of the LBW rules, its the physical things that hurting the game like 2 new balls, only 4 fielders outside 30 yard circle in middle overs, kind of pitches, the ball with little support to spinners, and the bat that batsman allowed nowadays are just ridiculous, if we want to bring the balance to the bat and ball contest those are the things we need to concentrate.
Ok bro, I am done now I have replied to too many people. Let's agree to disagree and move on, Cheers
The evolution of the laws of cricket has echoes if the development of tax laws. Most tax laws exist to close loopholes of possible avoidance ("negative play"), just as various laws including this one have to be in place, because if they weren't, the game would become awful. The other obvious case is the number if fielders behind square in the legside, which was a direct response to the Bodyline Tour.
I'm not a mentalist or anything but I get a feeling that you work in the accounts department
Do one on LBW and Wide in case of Switch hit
Ok
What is negative bowling? Why pitching outside OFF stump some times given not-out even if the ball hits stumps? Spinners usually pitch outside off stump but ball can turn and hit wickets. Is this to discourage spin bowlers?? Why should the contact even be inline with the stumps? As long as wickets are hitting it should be given out.
I have answered this somewhere please check it out in the comments section 🤣🤣, If you still aren't satisfied with my answer I will try my best to give you an explanation
Unable to find it. Would you mind re-answering all the questions?
negative bowling means putting most of your fielders on leg side and then bowling there so that you can’t get runs and if you try scoring runs you might end up getting out caught for a broad understanding you can look it up on the internet
@@cegprakash
The impact is also complicated but I think you can't really tell with predictive path whether the ball was going to move that much in to hit the stumps when the impact is outside off, if it is 0-50% in line with the stumps then the umpire's call is given so basically whatever umpire thought with the naked eye in that particular moment if you want clarity on Umpire's call here's a video I made ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.html
hope this answers your question.@@cegprakash
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish Thank you for your reply bro.. I saw the other video as well bro.. But I still feel spinners are in a disadvantage considering spinners and swingers who can pitch the ball within 3 metres from stump outside off stump and the impact 40cm+ from the pitching and also within 250 cms from the stumps and manage to hit the stumps.. In this case Technology gives umpires call and this is not fair for the spinners and swingers when umpires give not out and technology stays with umpires decision even though stumps fall in ball tracking? For example Shane Warne took wickets with 90 degree turns.. We would lose such bowlers in this era because of this rule. Check this spell for example: ruclips.net/video/XuG6xKT6N0s/видео.htmlsi=wftRMvV1cYH_66Yg
I've seen enough of umpires thinking they're god and calling an lbw for a ball that just might be tickling the outside of the stump or a bail. When the batsman calls for review they are given out only because of the umpires initial call. The umpires judgement can't be that good. I don't think a batsman should be give out unless the umpire is convinced that the whole of the ball is hitting the stumps, not just a part of it.
true, there are some bad umpires out there
Can you explain why that a ball pitched outside leg bowls the batsman is given out but if an lbw is pitched outside leg it’s not given out? Really struggled to understand this
When talking about bowled, the ball has to hit the stumps whether it hit the stumps directly or it was deflected off of the player's bat or body doesn't matter if it hits the stumps before becoming dead(going to the keeper or other fielders ) then it's out bowled. But in LBW's case ball has to pitch either inline or outside off stump and then hit the player's body in line with the stumps and then if it is going on to hit the stumps then it is given out. In LBW ball's trajectory is followed and in bowled the ball just has to hit the stumps. These laws regarding the two are different because lbw makes a prediction and bowled can be seen. Apologies if I made it more harder for you to understand.
End main sahi kaha .out hona chahiye outside leg
The more controversial part is when the ball pitches outside off stamp and hits the leg outside off stump, but would have hit the wicket, it is not out.
Imagine a ball bowled way outside the offstump. suddenly the ball hits something and deviates a long way to hit the offstump. in order to avoid this , impact rule was brought in wherein the batsman can try to play that ball. even if he misses it , it might hit him outside the stump line
Ummm okay
You can't place more than 6 fielders on the led side anyway. I think this rule is going to change soon
Let's see what happens
gotta agree with a reformation of the rules, especially considering how spin bowling has evovled in the past twenty years. Now bowlers can spin the ball any which way, they are at a disadvantage of not being able to pitch it leg and turn it back in.
And now that T20 has allowed for the creation of the 360 player, the idea of a batsmen having a "blind-spot" is fading away.
Thank You, thats what I have been trying to tell most people in the comments section.
for me this rule is fine because batsman any batter cannot see well from leg side so its a fair rule . but for me the unfair is murmuring about spirit of the game When the batter is out mankand because its fair to bowler
Batters have invented switch hits, scoops basically 360 shots so even if it troubles batters for a while, they will adjust in time and this game is tilting in batters favour with every passing day. Hope, that answers your question.
Cheers
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish still i believe this rule is fair.
because a bowler especially pacer bowls a fast delivery from leg side then other pacers can also adapt that because they will know that they need to hit that side and batter is gone.
anyways your explanation is good
Thanks, Let's Agree to Disagree.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish no lets fix a date and fight with an umpire there,😁
No, I don't see they even think about changing this Leg Side LBW rule, mainly because of your second reason, coz that might change the course of the game, also not every Batman is good at playing leg and so it may not change for few also batsman around the globe for centuries now are used to play for the existing rule, they are hardwired for defending negative length delivery using their feet.if the leg side lbw rule comes in to play, they then there is another Pandora Box open for batsman to get out which ICC may not agree...this was the same reason why they brought umpires call in the picture otherwise in one series in srilanka vs India(Mendis wala) when DRS was taken and no umpires call or 50 Percent rule exist the batsman was given out even for brushing the stumps in the trajectory.
I don't agree with most of what you have said.
Nobody is gonna talk about that boomerang 🪃 delivery by Bumrah to begin with? Wow what an incredible little nightmare for the batsman
Okay!!
It will not create more balance in favor of the bowler. It will DESTROY the game for batsmen!
No, it won’t reverse sweep, scoop, switch hit and many more modern shots are there to tackle it
When I watch cricket matches on screen. I predict my decision on LBW before umpire makes his decision, and my accuracy on LBW is really good. 😀
Maybe ICC should use you instead of the DRS
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish Then I'll get paid enough to be an Umpire Indian.
Man you've got some refreshing content! Just became your 547'th subscriber, can't wait to see this comment again when you'll be at 50k. Godspeed!
Yo!!!!!! See you soon at 50k
First of all thanks for the explanation , but still i can't understand that why there can't be an exception to this rule for example a right arm leg spinner bowling to right hand batter because in this case leg spinner with their leg spin can still get a wicket even by bowling outside the line of leg stump as there are numerous examples of that with Shane Warne classic dismissals being the prime example. And also left arm wrist spinner bowling to left hand batter same logic applies.... Any thoughts , anyone ??
Someone will reply I am too tired now.
I've just hit "subscribe", now I'm on the team! I guess the LBW rule should change (the ball may pitch outside the line of leg), but certain leg-side field restrictions could come into play, like the "2 behind square leg" rule. Anyhow, keep up the good work. 🏏
Thanks
Well presented....could you explain why "umpire's call" is still a thing? Surely there is only 2 answers in cricket - out or not out, umpires call blurs the line and should be removed from the game imo.
It should stay it's not fool proof but it should stay in my opinion
ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Here's a video I made on it.
DRS was introduced to eliminate poor decisions. If they show umpire's call then it shows the decision was marginal, not poor. Ball tracking is useful, but not perfect.
So you are gonna go around and reply to every comment, hmmm nice makes my job easier Thanks @@TheRip72
Because there is margin of error in the ball tracking, therefore the Hawkeye could be wrong about the ball's trajectory by enough that it would have missed the stumps, therefore umpire's call. And there is only 2 answers, if there was no DRS the umpire would either call out, or not call out
That Ishant Sharma's inswinger 🤌🏻
If you can't get out LBW for outside leg, then you should be allowed to be bowled outside leg either. The ball of the century would have not been given. 😉
true that
LBW started in 1774 way before the beginning of cricket !
Cricket started in the late 16th century
If the batsman is beaten to the extent that he could not protect his stumps, then he should be given out - regardless of where the ball was pitched.
Another scenario is where the batsman faintly nicks the ball on to his pads and is given not out. This too should be changed to be given out as the ball would have hit the stumps, but for his pads coming in the way
The nick part is plain wrong, if someone Nicks the ball then Leg Before Wicket concept is gone, A batter can't get their body out of the way if bat is involved then the entire rule changes.
How do you decide what is faintly nicks or not?
Look, however faint or strong the contact with the bat is it doesn’t matter, once the bat is involved LBW is out of question, I am not trying to make the game perfect, you can’t but there are some areas where you have to improve with time. Before 1937 pitching outside off was also considered not out but then that changed because the cricketing minds agreed that the law needed improvement@@ben1ben1ben1
Is there an English version of this video?
Send me your address, I will send you Indian English speaking course book all paid by me.
I agree, the law should be changed. Great video 😎
Jump to 1:30 if you want to skip directly to the reasons part
not everyone knows the rules entirely so that's why I have put the entire explanation
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish all good. I put the comment for those who know and want to skip directly to the reasons.
I think don't fix what isn't broken. The rule helps increase drama of the game when there is a review and ensures the bowler is going after outsmarting the batsman than aiming for the stumps in the hope the batsman mistimes the ball.
Kindly phrase your sentence better because it didn't make any sense to me
@EuphoriaCricketEnglish I'm just saying that the outside off is a rule that worked since its invention so there is no reason to change it. Bowling should be about outsmarting the batsman not forcing an lbw so removing the outside off rule will eliminate that.
if the bowler is beating the batter, in a way he/she is outsmarting them, besides t20 is taking the game away from batters day by day and this rule change might benefit the game as it will make the game more bowler-friendly so let's hope ICC does something about this@@Ronakvevo
Perfect
Bowler will make sure that his ball pitches on line with stump, and not turn, swing, seam so much so that, it misses stumps, what a dumb rule
The rule is flawed but calling it outrightly dumb is a bit extreme my dear friend.
There is one more stupid rule in cricket, that is:
Batsman can stop the ball with his bat , if he missed hit and it is hitting the stumps .😡
Interesting
This rule also must be removed
I don’t know man, haven’t really thought about it in detail@@navaneethdesai
If you allow balls pitching outside leg stump to be out LBW then you would quickly see a plethora of leg spinners bowling big leg breaks and pace bowlers bowling yorkers around the wicket, at leg stump. They would be getting batsmen out for fun.
This would funnel the bowling side into a very narrow and, imo, not fun tactic.
So what it would make the game much more interesting and batters will come up with a reply to this as well and I think they already have with reverse sweeps switch hit and 360 shots. Bowlers have got nothing going for them. I think this change will help even out the game to some extent.
Bowlers have knuckle, slower, bouncer bowling@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish
thats still not enough, batting sides still score 300-400 easily in onedayers, bowlers have somethings going for them but the game is heavily tilted towards batters and it will tilt in their favour more and more as time passes @@Peeti-Peetu
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish in one day, the pitches are flat and reverse swing is gone. That's the problem
@@Peeti-Peetu And Batsman could score more because of the quality of bats now a days.
The only rule should be, ball hitting the stump, its out. As simple as that. I donno why all the unnecessary steps. Because in a same match you get two different decisions for two different team in todays rule. This is not fair at all.
It's not that simple there are a lot of moving parts you can't just make rules like that.
Yes todays cricket is more pro batsman. I mean if you want to give and advantage to batsman then atleast allow 2 bouncers too.
True
It’s a law obviously written by a right handed bowler and is biased against left handed bowlers
I don't know who wrote it, but it should be looked at.
Why impact outside off is not out if shot is offered ?
google it man
It is very hard to play negative bowling.
One can learn
You didn't explains the stump line impact. (For both spinners and pacers)
It wasn't required, I have explained it here though ruclips.net/video/Fs23EB6GBMY/видео.htmlsi=o1c2wnI9KL_v03Yj
“Modern game is in favor of batsmen” - so lets just give batsman out if ball misses the bat 😂
Yes, if it's going on to hit the stumps
Out side leg = Not pitching inline. Use the correct term.
Not pitching in line could also be pitching outside off there's a difference between the two. Hence, I have used the term.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish Not pitching in line with stumps is used when a right bowler comes around to the wicket to a right handed batsmen, or a left armed bowler comes over the wicket to a right armed batsmen. In both cases to get an LBW the ball must pitch in line with the stumps. Hence "pitching in line". There is no need to consider "pitching in Line" when a right handed bowler, bowls to a right hander.
No matter which hand bowler is coming to bowl from whichever side it is about the batter's off side and leg side. This video is about why pitching outside leg is not out. So, how am I using the incorrect term. You should watch the video again.
I dont agree.
Constantly bowling on pads on leg side willl increase negative bowling and take away the excellent way we are enjoying cricket.
No need to ask for a change just for the sake of change.
But yeah it can be done in t20s for a start.
Lets no decide though. There are lot of cricket legends and i have never heard anyone asking that so there must be good reasons .
Please dont act as if u are some legendary ex or present cricketer.😂😂So dont think much.
Ian Chappell said it and you don't always need to be a great cricketer to make basic observations. You are channeling your hate at the wrong place, I will make more videos and I will make them however I like them.
@@EuphoriaCricketEnglish It is not basic observation, it is having basic knowledge but thinking urself to expert and giving opinions beyond scope.😂😂
to each his own, I will not argue with you further@@sky16678
You just opened my mind 🤯🤯