It makes sense if you remember why a leg side wide is given in ODIs, because they are hard to hit. So if you could bowl from very wide of the crease and pitch it outside the line of leg stump, fast bowlers would get lots of wickets without the rule.
As I expected, other opinions were available. And I get where you're both coming from. You both make valid points. But, to me, if the technology is showing that the ball is going on to hit the stumps then, to me, that's out. Which is all pretty much irrelevant anyway, as the rule (law?) isn't going to change any time soon.It also means the batsman would be limited in where they could hit the ball too, so you could have a hugely legside dominant field.
Not watching, but I'm guessing it's better weather in Leicester this evening.Take the game to the Sunshine State, and it pee’s it down.
Spoilt what could have been a good finish to the group. They really need to re-think the format.Take the game to the Sunshine State, and it pee’s it down.
As I expected, other opinions were available. And I get where you're both coming from. You both make valid points. But, to me, if the technology is showing that the ball is going on to hit the stumps then, to me, that's out. Which is all pretty much irrelevant anyway, as the rule (law?) isn't going to change any time soon.
Same as VAR in football. No VAR in the EFL.That would then lead to cricket being played under very different rules in different competitions, wouldn't it? Not every comp has video.
Same as VAR in football. No VAR in the EFL.
I wasn't referring to leg side wides in my original comments, by the way. Certainly keep them in place.Yeah, fair point, I skipped in my own thinking there.
The defensive bowling is the main reason - there would be no more run chases as the ball would be two feet down the leg side out of reach.