Isn't that where ball tracking comes in then? To confirm, or not, that the ball is going on to hit the stumps?
To be honest, I get the feeling that the current situation is only there to keep the need for standing umpires.I still think the current situation is flawed. But I'm not going to argue the toss with you. We'll agree to disagree on this!
I still think the current situation is flawed. But I'm not going to argue the toss with you. We'll agree to disagree on this!
I think the current situation has issues but so does technology and we don't always see that. The ball tracking for example is a prediction. The ball was blocked and we don't really know whether it might be swinging further in one direction or spinning wider etc. So the ball tracking does have a probability applied and it says... not quite sure on this so we'll go with the umpire who made the decision in the first place. Yes that can lead to the wrong decision but in general you'll get the right decision more often than not. Sibley survived two or three in Sri Lanka when he'd have been out if the umpire had given it on the field. Definitely not perfect yet.
Compare it to VAR though and is it any worse? When you're talking about a game of football played at high pace and someone is offside because their armpit is behind the defender... that's ludicrous. Especially as you could have frozen the frame too late/early.
I guess in football, you'd like to go with the onfield decision in those cases. They might not always be right when the science looks at it... but if they're too close for the science then let the human decision be the call?!
It encourages negative bowling tactics. Similar to how there are restrictions on the amount of catching fielders behind square on the leg side and short balls.Something I can never get my head around. If the ball strikes the batsman outside the line, or if it pitches outside leg stump, the batsman can't be given out LBW, even if ball tracking shows the delivery to be going on to hit the stumps. Why disregard ball tracking in these cases, yet depend on it in other cases?
You have a point. But I think that batsmen would learn to adapt their game to suit. You'd get an increase in strokes like the sweep, or the fine snick down to long leg. Anyhow, as I said earlier, we're not going to agree on this, even if we argued until England lose this test sometime tomorrow morning. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. Draw?It encourages negative bowling tactics. Similar to how there are restrictions on the amount of catching fielders behind square on the leg side and short balls.
A pitching outside leg LBW law, IMO, would produce a similar result to bodyline in terms of its use as an extremely repetitive and highly successful bowling tactic. Which would be batshit fucking boring to watch.
You have a point. But I think that batsmen would learn to adapt their game to suit. You'd get an increase in strokes like the sweep, or the fine snick down to long leg. Anyhow, as I said earlier, we're not going to agree on this, even if we argued until England lose this test sometime tomorrow morning. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours. Draw?
Tweak the rules re numbers of leg side fielders? Not looking to argue with you, and this is my last post on the issue (the mighty West Ham are on!). It was just in relation to the ruling re no LBW when the ball pitches outside leg stump, or hits the batsman outside the line, when ball tracking shows the ball going on to hit the stumps.It’s my first contribution to this particular debate.
You would get more legside shots as it would be nigh on impossible to play offside shots. The fielding team could have 9 legside fielders.
Not trying to change your mind, just paint the picture I see.
To be honest, I get the feeling that the current situation is only there to keep the need for standing umpires.
Cricket has got to the stage now where they are completely redundant if not for umpires call on LBWs.
They refer every close run out upstairs, there is technology to determine if the batsman has hit the ball, there is technology to determine whether an LBW is out. They even now have a bloke who checks the no ball on tv after each ball and relays it back to the standing umpire to give a no ball.
Other than counting to 6 and holding the bowlers cap/jumper, standing umpires are completely redundant if not for umpires call on LBWs.