StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
Only if the surrendering of LBW privileges is SPECIFICALLY for just if a batsman attempts a switch hit, since a total surrendering of it would make for some low scoring test matches.
We all know the amount of times a batsman is hit on the pads with the ball clearly hitting, only to be saved by it being pitched outside leg.
But overall as i mentioned before given that only two batsmen in world cricket can do it effectively, while others look dumb and risk getting out foolishly by doing it - that wont be necessary, since it will essentially be a freak occurrence.
welllll, it's an interesting case, as angy said, LBW was introduced to stop people bowling a negative line. it's arguable that if you're saying batsmen are capable of switching stances, no matter how much skill it takes, then it's no longer really such a negative line (also bearing in mind since it was introduced you've got the reverse sweep and new shots invented to deal with it)
I don't really see what's negative about a seamer or a spinner being able to land the ball outside leg and have it come shooting back onto middle stump.
the outside leg rule isn't just arbitrarily made to make sure test match scores were higher, it was to promote attacking play, if it's now hindering a type of attacking play then it's not fit for purpose.
that said, I don't know if I really would want to change it.