Possible New Leg Side Wide Rule?

[paul]

Glad someone else has brought it back up but I fear the NIMBY's will reject it again. Reject it again?? It hasn't been rejected a first time yet. It would have to be proposed to the rules meeting and then voted on at the AGM to be rejected. To the best of my knowledge this hasn't happened and I've been to the last 5 or so rules meetings. I don't think its a "nimby" thing, we really can't change the rules unless clubs propose them except to close loop holes and comply with changes in ECB directives.

If your keen to see it adopted as a league rule you need to get another club to second it and then send a written ammendment of the rule to Colin Craig the League sec. He will then make sure it is discussed at the rules meeting and options presented at the AGM. The annual rules meeting is held just after the close of each season so you have time to find a club to second your proposal.

As to my views on it. If you encourage bowlers to keep away from the leg side I recon that would cut at least 80% of my runs for the season ;-). Other than that I have no view on it...

[paul]

The backlash of comments I received in 2005 made me think it would not be worth pursuing.
Maybe, but to accuse those who oppose the idea of being "nimbys" is... how to put this without sounding rude cos I don't mean to be...a bit provocative. It sounds as if you are acusing people of being narrow minded because they don't happen to support the idea. I'm sure thats not what you meant.

You might view the website forums as a useful barometer of opinion which is part of its existence and that is what I did. Thats exactly how I view the forums on the website and I enjoy the banter that takes place here. Long may it continue. I'd be happy to see all sorts of ideas tossed around here including this one. I actually think there could be some merit in discussing it. Exactlty what would be proposed is another thing. I also think that the respect we are required to give to umpires even at our level is an integral part of the game. We both know that if we remove this decision from them people will find something else to moan about 8-)
If I see any support I would be happy to lobby our league rep to propose the rule change. :lol:
You can go through your league rep or submit a seconded proposal direct to the League sec. Either way it would get a good hearing.

I'd be interested in what any final proposal would be. In at least two games I played in last year the result depended on contentious wide decisions in the last over. I know the guy who called them well and would stand by his call every time. That dosent make it easier to swallow for the losing side. You could put Dickie Bird there and if the result goes against you the natural thing seems to be to question the decision. Lets support our team mates and opponents who are also our umpires.

[paul]

We have a very promising young leg break bowler who at 15 last season bowled a good many experienced batsman around their legs. Now he also sent a lot of balls straight on down leg side. Where would those in favour of this rule suggest we teach him to pitch the ball and how much should we encourage him to turn it? All you batters out there answers on a postcard please,

[paul]

I think it is time to bring in the respective unions to have a bun fight over this issue. :-) , however this is being discussed due to bowlers bowling down leg side, and wides not being given, rather than pitching it on the leg side and going over middle. I was under the impression that a wide should be called at the point where the ball passes the stumps/batsman. I will happyly stand corrected!

Could we not have the wickets marked with an agreed distance of what is a wide for example 4.125 inches :-D outside leg stump. As the umpires are usually from the batting side at least this gives a guide to what is wide and may help with consistency.Just so we are all talking about the same rule from the Laws of Cricket WIDE BALL (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-25-wide-ball,51,AR.html) From this a wide is called from the ball passing the batsman at his normal stance. I'm sure most of us take gaurd on or around the crease. The suggested change to the rule would make it impossible to bowl you around your legs. Unless the wording is changed to call a ball as it passes the stumps. I'd be interested to see the wording of the law that leagues employing this idea use.

[paul]

OK what about "The ball shall be called "WIDE" if it pitches on or outside the line of leg stump and continues to travel down the leg side of the batsmen. Wides on the off-side will be at the discretion of the umpire."

This is about making it clear and easy to define what is a wide and what is not.

The introduction of "promising leggies" and "bowlers who attack leg stump" is in my opinion trying to excuse technical failings in the bowler and expecting the batsmen to put up with it.

Surely the game is about who scores most runs and not who can get away conceding less by bowling balls that can't be hit down leg side and relying on the confused umpire not to penalise you.
No, the distinction here is attacking the leg stump of a batter who demonstrates a lack of ability to get in line and play legside shots. If a bowler continually bowls down legside then he should be called for it if the ball is deemed unplayable from a batsmans natural stance or position he has adopted in an attempt to play a "normal cricket shot", whatever that is? Our promising leggie can and does often turn a ball a good foot to eighteen inches and pitches on and outside leg because that is the best form of attack. Now good batters will know how to play him. Get in line and read the turn or come forward and kill the spin. The rule as you suggest would remove a 15 year old from the game at least as far as bowling options. Experienced batters can and do take him to town. Batters who are used to having the ball put in their zone do not. Yes he should be called wide if the ball travels down legside and is out of the resonable reach of the batter, this happens. On or outside leg is every leggies natural length. How are we to produce the next Shane Warne if we exclude them from the game? The same goes for many left arm seamers, they should be aiming to pitch middle and leg and get it to straighten. It dosent give them much room for error if they are told that to stray by an inch or less and you will be called wide is unreasonable. I'd support it if we asked batters to be that precise with their shot placement and hit the boundary flag of the bowlers choice and deducted one run if they were so much as an inch off the middle of the bat :-D

[paul]

Andy, thinking about it, your point about trying to make it clear what is and what isn't a wide is a good one and I think is the nub of the matter. I think we do need to try and look at that because we are all "reluctant" umpires ( well most of us). I still feel we need to try and introduce a little more tolarance when it comes to respect for our team mates and oppo when they stand as umpires.

So far as trying to clarify the wide rule I'd be more inclined to support the idea of a white mark on the popping crease about a foot outside as the bench mark and provision for the umpires in the laws to warn persistant negative legside bowling.

[andrewshields]

An issue for me would be that of interpretation and consistency. Take an off-break bowler able to extract considerable turn who pitches on middle and off, draws a batter forward, beats him all ends up and fizzes the ball down the leg side. Is that a wide? Should the bowler be forced to reduce the amount of turn he is able to obtain? I'd argue not on both scores. Indeed, I would want him to continue turning the ball that much in the hope of either bowling the batter or getting a leg-side catch/stumping.

I can see the benefit of this rule for bowlers of medium-pace or quicker persistently slinging it down the leg side as a negative tactic, but I agree with Shrekkie that attacking a batsman's leg stump is a perfectly legitimate approach. And, of course, the batsman can just plonk his front foot outside leg stump and hit through the arc as international players are coached to do these days...

edited by: andrewshields, Feb 09, 2007 - 04:10 PM

[andrewshields]

If you or anyone can tell me the reasons why in some leagues... this "anything down leg is a wide" rule is used...'



Is it? Which ones? Perhaps a way forward would be talk to those leagues and find out their experiences and how they implemented the rule.

edited by: andrewshields, Feb 12, 2007 - 10:00 AM

[andrewshields]

I'm with you in spirit, andywebster, but I fear that introducing the rule would cause more problems than it solves when you consider that most games in our league are umpired by players, usually more than one per innings.

When we have qualified neutral umpires standing in games who can apply the rule consistently and impartially then it's worth considering.

Until that point, we're best giving the umpires one less thing to think about.

[bearski]

Andrew, i agree with the idea totally, but i want to be able to have a pint before the pub shuts!! Just get a horrible feeling that we will be playing at 8.30/9pm if we introduce this rule!! :-O

[bearski]

I'm sure i have said this before, but i was once wided when i pitched the ball six inches outside leg stump and it passed over the top of middle behind the batsmen's legs!! Using that criteria, i could bowl someone with a wide!!!

[andywebster]

Tom,

I quite agree but I posted this in 2005
"On Saturday 30th July Bishop's Stortford III's entertained Thorley 1's. Both sides had umpires of their own who offiiciated for the duration of the somewhat soggy match.
There were a number of remarks made to both umpires by Bishop's Stortford batsmen which questioned some deliveries they thought deserving of being given as wides. Almost without exception these were passing down the legside.
Would it not provide clarity and consistency and make the umpiring, neutral or otherwise, a bit easier if the league provided guidance in the same terms as the professional game. i.e Any ball passing unhindered down leg is a wide. Comments?? "

I got little support as concern was raised about the length of the game, presumably there are some real dobblers who struggle to bowl straight. Glad someone else has brought it back up but I fear the NIMBY's will reject it again. :-(

[andywebster]

Easy tiger...............

I'm well aware of the procedure for proposing rule changes.

The backlash of comments I received in 2005 made me think it would not be worth pursuing.

You might view the website forums as a useful barometer of opinion which is part of its existence and that is what I did.

If I see any support I would be happy to lobby our league rep to propose the rule change. :lol:

[andywebster]

I have done some research on the rule as used in other leagues. I have come up with the following which seems to solve the dilema of the big spinning off break.

"The ball shall be called "WIDE" if it pitches on or outside the line of leg stump and continues to travel down the leg side. Wides on the off-side will be at the discretion of the umpire."

If Tom H or others keen to propose change think this is appropriate I am happy to lobby/second etc.





:-P null

[andywebster]

OK what about "The ball shall be called "WIDE" if it pitches on or outside the line of leg stump and continues to travel down the leg side of the batsmen. Wides on the off-side will be at the discretion of the umpire."

This is about making it clear and easy to define what is a wide and what is not.

The introduction of "promising leggies" and "bowlers who attack leg stump" is in my opinion trying to excuse technical failings in the bowler and expecting the batsmen to put up with it.

Surely the game is about who scores most runs and not who can get away conceding less by bowling balls that can't be hit down leg side and relying on the confused umpire not to penalise you.

[Tom_H]

After playing some of the Australian Cricket season, I was pleased to see that a rule had been set in place, for one day games only, as some of the games I played were two days, that any ball that was not touched by the batsman down the leg side was an automatic wide.

Is there any place for this rule change in the HECL?

I can think of two benefits;

1. Saves at least one bit of grief every game from bowlers to umpires, as there is a set specification so there is no chance of "dubious" leg side wides being called.

2. Helps discipline the bowlers into bowling straight, it certainly helped me as a whole.

Any views? Maybe it would lengthen some games a little?

edited by: Tom_H, Feb 06, 2007 - 10:28 AM

[Tom_H]

Bearski,

I think that the length of the game being increased is the only draw back of the possible solution, you are correct. Although, what I found it to be the case anyway, was that as I knew I would be penalised for bowling down the legside, automatically I was doing it less from the off.

I do really think it would help younger bowlers who will hopefully play from a young age with the rule, in reducing the amount of leg side balls they send down.

[Tom_H]

Shrekkie,

I can't see how the suggestion is going to benefit batsman that much at all. Batsman can still play shots at leg side deliveries just like they do at wide off-side deliveries. It will surely increase discipline for bowlers, although at first it may take some getting used to.

[Tom_H]

Shrekkie,

Your "avenue of attack" point is a good one. If you or anyone can tell me the reasons why in some leagues, and at County and International levels, this "anything down leg is a wide" rule is used, it would be good?

[Tom_H]

It is possible to be bowled around your legs as the ball hit the stumps. The rule would deem anything that goes untouched past leg stump a wide.

[Ship2Shore]

Wide down leg side rule:

I think this will reduce the amount of 'potential' moaning that happens during the course of the season. It has to be said the moaning does tend to be by batsman. I like the proposal of introducing this rule, but I do understand the drawbacks (I play in Div 6). Sometimes I think it is worth trying something new to see if it will work and how this effects the game. I would propose that we try the new rule in one division next year (2008 season - not necessarily Div 1) and see how it works out. Get feedback from all the teams that the division and look to implement the ruling to all divisions the following year.

Alternatively does anyone have another proposal that will help with the inconsistency of wides being called. :-)

[Ship2Shore]

I think it is time to bring in the respective unions to have a bun fight over this issue. :-) , however this is being discussed due to bowlers bowling down leg side, and wides not being given, rather than pitching it on the leg side and going over middle. I was under the impression that a wide should be called at the point where the ball passes the stumps/batsman. I will happyly stand corrected!

Could we not have the wickets marked with an agreed distance of what is a wide for example 4.125 inches :-D outside leg stump. As the umpires are usually from the batting side at least this gives a guide to what is wide and may help with consistency.

edited by: Ship2Shore, Feb 13, 2007 - 01:48 AM

[shrekkie]

I don't like the idea, it's another way to bias the game towards batters more than it already is, i.e. with a bowler only being allowed to bowl a limited number of overs, yet a batter is allowed to bat all afternoon.

As a bolwer, sometimes I establish that a batter is weak off his legs, and I want to attack him there. What happened to a leg side ball being a free hit for a batter? I think it would be better for a batter to develop a full range of shots, and spank it for four or six the way it really should be.

[shrekkie]

I can't see how the suggestion is going to benefit batsman that much at all. Batsman can still play shots at leg side deliveries just like they do at wide off-side deliveries.

Because it takes an avenue of attack away from the bowler.
If I want to attack a batter on his/her legs, I can't. This will only lead to a reduction in the quality of shot selection for the next generation of players coming through too. Cricket should be an even playing field, if the batter can reach it comfortably then it isn't wide. The rules as they are written are perfect. As it is bowlers often have to put up with batting umpires who forget about the 'batter bringing it within their reach' law, without adding yet more bias towards batters who should be able to play the ball anyway if they had the available shots.

[shrekkie]

[quote]"The ball shall be called "WIDE" if it pitches on or outside the line of leg stump and continues to travel down the leg side. Wides on the off-side will be at the discretion of the umpire."[quote]

And if a player is taking a leg stump guard, he will be standing well outside the stumps, this means he could jump back out of the way and it would be wide.

The wide ball law has worked very well for god knows how many years, it is fine as it is. Don't mess it up. The way it is at the moment, it caters for every type of batter; big, small, left handed, right handed, one handed, one legged. All because it clearly says the ball has to be within reach of the batter or the batter brings it within their reach (not that most batters when umpiring apply that last bit!!).

E.g. You've got a 4ft youngster and a 7ft giant with a reach from here to sydney, batting together. The bowler can legitamately attck the big batter further away from the stumps than the little one. Which is all fine especially if you think their cut or pull is weak.

[shrekkie]

learn to leg glance (eh Shrekkie?) and appreciate that yes it is a batters game!

Leg glance: is that where I take a massive swipe at the ball, and in the course of the follow through spin around three times with the bat wrapped round my neck, and end up flat on my back looking up at the sky wondering why I have the silly bit of wood in my hand anyway? And why do the keepers always seem to hide their face in the gloves when this happens. Bowling is the way forward, you make a mistake you get another go (skipper permitting that is, 'sorry skip didn't mean to put it there').

[Sturds]

Gents

As has been pointed out during this discussion, the Laws (not rules) of cricket should really suffice at whatever level you play at.

Law 25.1(b) states that "the ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke". Therefore, even as a batsman I appreciate that not every ball is going to be pitched nicely outside my off stump, so that I can (attempt to) drive it through the covers!!! What I would cheekily suggest to any batsman who has a real problem with the Law is learn to leg glance (eh Shrekkie?) and appreciate that yes it is a batters game!

Sturds

[Plumester]

I agree with Big Shrekkie...as Elbs says sometimes the plan is to attack a batsmans legs a bit more if he is weak there, and we at this level are always going to spray the odd one down the leg side, it happens all day at the top level after all !

If the bowler is constantly sticking it down the legside then the umpire has the option of calling wides...particulary if hes being deliberately negative...but I feel at our village level if everything down the leg side is called a wide we will be here today, tomorrow and the the next day after that trying to complete a game....especially if Im bowling !!

I can understand the idea, but for me I couldnt see it working!

[gladders]

i think any ball i cant hit should be called a wide !!!

Seriously though, having a agreed mark may well cause as many arguments as it solves.

imagine a ball passing directly over this line and it not being called a wide. At least with your judgement you wont have full blown arguments on the field