Abolish Leg-Byes?

[jemo27]

leg Byes should runs be counted?

Damian fleeming on ABC radio was mentioning that he would lije to make leg byes not count for any runs because batsmen are being rewarded for making a mistake, which i feel actualo has some merrit, it would make socring easier

 

[Manee]

Leave leg byes as they are. They are a part of the game. There is also no problem with them. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This has been discussed before in threads about rule changes and was mooted as being tried even in Bradman's day.

 

[sledger]

tbh I just think of it as part of the game, whether the batsman hits it or not they still have to run between the stumps, leave it as it is.

 

[andyc]

Given the spelling, I assumed the last option to be the irrelevant 4th option and so voted for it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Damian fleeming on ABC radio was mentioning that he would lije to make leg byes not count for any runs because batsmen are being rewarded for making a mistake, which i feel actualo has some merrit, it would make socring easier

Batsmen aren't rewarded though, as they don't get any runs to their name. The bowling team is punished for bowling on the batsman's pads, as that's how it should be.

 

[Stapel]

Batsmen aren't rewarded though, as they don't get any runs to their name. The bowling team is punished for bowling on the batsman's pads, as that's how it should be.

That's what I was thinking too. Especially when leg byes come from other parts than legs. A ball nudging a helmet and flying on for four, is a nice way to 'punish' a bowler .

 

[Migara]

Leave it. We don't want rubbish like free hits any more to cricket.

 

[Richard]

Batsmen aren't rewarded though, as they don't get any runs to their name. The bowling team is punished for bowling on the batsman's pads, as that's how it should be.

Except when it happens to go straight to a fielder...

TBH, the leg-bye rule is as good currently as it's ever going to be, IMO.

 

[Matt79]

Damien Fleming in his commentary yesterday raised the issue of why does a team get runs for a leg-bye? Unlike every other kind of extra, that penalises the fielding team for an error, it is in fact rewarding the batsman for an error, and the current leg-bye rule is in fact contradicting its own spirit, as you don't get a run if you don't attempt a shot - to discourage pad-play, but if you try a shot and fluff it, you can still get a run.

There's an argument that not counting the run is 'disruptive' but its a disruption that already happens given the umpire will disallow a run if it was judged there was no shot offered.

I'm not saying the batsman should be penalised for getting hit on the pads (unless he's LBW obviously), but neither should he get rewarded. A basic principle that for it to be runs, it needs to have hit the bat seems a sensible one to me.

 

[Richard]

It's not even off the front page!

 

[Matt79]

Sorry, I got overexcited.

Thanks whoever merged it

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Given the spelling, I assumed the last option to be the irrelevant 4th option and so voted for it.

Ridicules was one of the greatest Greek gods, though.

 

[silentstriker]

I am not sure if this needs changing. Matt79's point is well made though, and I can certainly see the other side.

 

[jemo27]

Damien Fleming in his commentary yesterday raised the issue of why does a team get runs for a leg-bye? Unlike every other kind of extra, that penalises the fielding team for an error, it is in fact rewarding the batsman for an error, and the current leg-bye rule is in fact contradicting its own spirit, as you don't get a run if you don't attempt a shot - to discourage pad-play, but if you try a shot and fluff it, you can still get a run.

There's an argument that not counting the run is 'disruptive' but its a disruption that already happens given the umpire will disallow a run if it was judged there was no shot offered.

I'm not saying the batsman should be penalised for getting hit on the pads (unless he's LBW obviously), but neither should he get rewarded. A basic principle that for it to be runs, it needs to have hit the bat seems a sensible one to me.

total agree there is nothing worse than beating a batsmen, hiting them on the pad and then they run a leg bye which disrupts all your efforts in getting a batsmen out

what if for example a spin bowler hits the batsmen on the pads when the batsmen is sweeping and the bowler just misses out on LBW and the batsmen is able to run a leg bye because the ball has deflected of the pad to fine leg for example.

the batsmen has missed the ball, making a mistake and they get a run for it

 

[cover drive man]

Nah keep them as they are for me. Leg byes although not much skill involved are entertaining.

 

[Perm]

Leg byes although not much skill involved are entertaining.

You find leg-byes entertaining?

 

[cover drive man]

You find leg-byes entertaining?

Yes some how.

 

[Richard]

ITSTL.
z

 

[Josh]

Crap. I voted the wrong option.