what is the logic of lbw not granted if the ball pitches outside leg stump? ... if the ball is going on to hit the stumps and the pads intervene, the decision should be OUT irrespective of where the ball pitched
The batsman has to put his feet somewhere, also if you abolish the pitched outside leg stump law then bowlers will simply bowl around the wicket into the batsman's pads and wait for him to miss one plus they'll pack the leg/on-side to prevent runs being scored.
what is the logic of lbw not granted if the ball pitches outside leg stump? ... if the ball is going on to hit the stumps and the pads intervene, the decision should be OUT irrespective of where the ball pitched
The batsman has to put his feet somewhere, also if you abolish the pitched outside leg stump law then bowlers will simply bowl around the wicket into the batsman's pads and wait for him to miss one plus they'll pack the leg/on-side to prevent runs being scored.
this is one theory/theories .. and it's full of holes .. batsman must put his feet somewhere? .. you lost me with this one .. the theory of just bowling round at the pads only applies to l/handers .. wait for the batsman to miss one? .. surely the idea of lbw in the first place
should have been out lbw - can't have it both ways. Batman's given out caught behind and he refers it saying "I didn't hit it, it hit my pad instead" - DRS proves him right, but then shows the ball was going on to hit the stumps..........so out lbw. I don't think he should be given another chance by "umpires call" as we have no idea what the umpire would have said if the appeal was for LBW. The batsman has had his chance re the first appeal..........
should have been out lbw - can't have it both ways. Batman's given out caught behind and he refers it saying "I didn't hit it, it hit my pad instead" - DRS proves him right, but then shows the ball was going on to hit the stumps..........so out lbw. I don't think he should be given another chance by "umpires call" as we have no idea what the umpire would have said if the appeal was for LBW. The batsman has had his chance re the first appeal..........
so this is cake and eat it .. the umpire should say on what grounds he has given his verdict .. caught OR lbw .. if it's deemed no catch when the umpire states that the batsman was given out caught BUT the ball might have hit the stumps, that is 'double jeopardy' and the batsman should stay .. or perhaps the fielding team should be asked on what grounds they are appealing .. caught or lbw
this is one theory/theories .. and it's full of holes .. batsman must put his feet somewhere? .. you lost me with this one
Yes - the batsman must put his feet somewhere - surely not too difficult to understand?
the theory of just bowling round at the pads only applies to l/handers .. wait for the batsman to miss one? ..
Think of a situation whereby the laws allowed the bowler to pitch the ball outside leg stump and claim LBWs - they would do this pretty much most of the time looking to angle the ball in from wide of the crease. In the meantime the batsman would have a limited range of shots/scoring opportunities this would apply to both left and right-handed batsmen.
surely the idea of lbw in the first place
The idea is to stop the batsman standing in front of the stumps to protect his wicket.
this is one theory/theories .. and it's full of holes .. batsman must put his feet somewhere? .. you lost me with this one
Yes - the batsman must put his feet somewhere - surely not too difficult to understand? the theory of just bowling round at the pads only applies to l/handers .. wait for the batsman to miss one? ..
Think of a situation whereby the laws allowed the bowler to pitch the ball outside leg stump and claim LBWs - they would do this pretty much most of the time looking to angle the ball in from wide of the crease. In the meantime the batsman would have a limited range of shots/scoring opportunities this would apply to both left and right-handed batsmen.
surely the idea of lbw in the first place
The idea is to stop the batsman standing in front of the stumps to protect his wicket.
stop bluffing .. and explain what you mean .. and I still don't follow your convoluted theories .. we will have to agree to differ on this
What's the lead? 202? Another 100 won't be impossible (but prob not likely... I'd take 50), and that will take some chasing. Win this and Bell gets an open top car ride round Britain
Bairstow's looking quality it has to be said. Just hope he doesn't just get a good start and get out.
Ah.
Gutted. Lad has a lot of potential, you could see it today with the way he bashed the Aussies about at will. Then he loses concentration and gives away his wicket. Also think he's the best fielder in the England side atm
Comments
Yes - the batsman must put his feet somewhere - surely not too difficult to understand?
the theory of just bowling round at the pads only applies to l/handers .. wait for the batsman to miss one? ..
Think of a situation whereby the laws allowed the bowler to pitch the ball outside leg stump and claim LBWs - they would do this pretty much most of the time looking to angle the ball in from wide of the crease. In the meantime the batsman would have a limited range of shots/scoring opportunities this would apply to both left and right-handed batsmen.
surely the idea of lbw in the first place
The idea is to stop the batsman standing in front of the stumps to protect his wicket.
Aussies 222-5.
Still tomorrow is another day...
Haddin out for 13
Rogers out for 110 on review, great catch from Prior.
Jimmy gets a wicket at last - Siddle ct Cook
Jaffa of a delivery that would have gotten many batsmen out.
Tea.
Lead of 123.
Come on Bairstow
Lead of 189.