Potential changes to the laws of cricket

Reading over the Laws of Cricket there are some rules I think could be modified or removed entirely. The Kasprowicz incident as Edgbaston is one. Kasper's hand came off the bat, the ball then struck the hand and the catch was taken by Jones. According to the Laws of Cricket this should be not out.

Law 6.3 said:

Hand or glove to count as part of the bat
In these laws,
(a) reference to the bat shall imply if the bat is held by the batsman
(b) contact between the ball and...
either (i) the striker's bat itself
or (ii) the striker's hand holding the bat
or (iii) any part of a glove worn on the strikers hand holding the bat shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being struck by the bat

Click to expand...

So technically the other hand is not part of the bat (makes sense because it is not in contact with the bat at all). I just find something unsettling about a player being struck on the gloves. Had the glove been on the bat then the catch would have been clean. Had the hand deliberately come in contact with the ball off the bat it would have been "handled the ball". So why if a batsman is so poor as to remove his hand from the bat and then unintentionally come in contact with the ball does it justify him being not out.

In accordance with this runs should also be able to be scored from the same scenario. Simply change the rules to say "either the bat or hands or glove worn on the strikers hands".

Your thoughts?

I agree

Also I think they should change the LBW law to help the bowler. I would suggest it should still be out even if the batsman gets an edge into his pad. After all it is out bowled if the ball hits the bat first

archie mac said:

I agree

Also I think they should change the LBW law to help the bowler. I would suggest it should still be out even if the batsman gets an edge into his pad. After all it is out bowled if the ball hits the bat first

Click to expand...

Was thinking that this morning when Symonds edged onto his pads - not because I'm a whinging pom, but for the reasons you just stated. If the batsman's pads prevent the ball from hitting the stumps, should be LBW IMO.

archie mac said:

I agree

Also I think they should change the LBW law to help the bowler. I would suggest it should still be out even if the batsman gets an edge into his pad. After all it is out bowled if the ball hits the bat first

Click to expand...

That's an excellent and original idea. How much of an impact do you think it might have on totals, though? There's usually at least 1 or 2 examples of this during each innings I watch, so we could be talking about knocking around 70 or 80 off each innings' total. Works for me.

Wouldn't it be hard to judge whether the ball would've hit the stumps after taking the edge? I've seen instances where the ball would've completely missed the stumps when looked at in slo-mo, but in real time it looked as though it would hit the stumps.

Yeah that's a very good call. However the rule in the first post would make it easier for umpires.

nightprowler10 said:

Wouldn't it be hard to judge whether the ball would've hit the stumps after taking the edge? I've seen instances where the ball would've completely missed the stumps when looked at in slo-mo, but in real time it looked as though it would hit the stumps.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in many cases it would be too hard to predict what would happen you'd imagine, given that the bat would be fairly close to the pads.

As it is, I don't see any problem with the LBW laws. I mean, it's not as if teams are continually making 600 runs every innings as bowlers fail to get them out, and we're hardly seeing defensive cricket in terms of batting (which was, IIRC, why the LBW laws were brought in in the first place). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

andyc said:

Yeah, in many cases it would be too hard to predict what would happen you'd imagine, given that the bat would be fairly close to the pads.

As it is, I don't see any problem with the LBW laws. I mean, it's not as if teams are continually making 600 runs every innings as bowlers fail to get them out, and we're hardly seeing defensive cricket in terms of batting (which was, IIRC, why the LBW laws were brought in in the first place). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

Just because it isn't broken doesn't mean it couldn't work better

Here's a strange one that I'm not too sure about

Law 32.3 said:

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if...

b) The ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing, or in the case of a wicket-keeper in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder.

Click to expand...

Why the hell not? If it's a legal catch if accidentally caught in the clothing then why not the helmet? Doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

James90 said:

Why the hell not? If it's a legal catch if accidentally caught in the clothing then why not the helmet? Doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Click to expand...

If the ball hits the helmet of a player from the fielding side, it is deemed a dead ball. So obviously it cannot be out if its a dead ball.

Are you meaning to say if the batsman hit the ball into the helmet of a short leg fieldsman and then ballooned in the air it couldn't be caught? Are we encouraging fielders to not protect their head from the ball or in fact the sun.

James90 said:

Are you meaning to say if the batsman hit the ball into the helmet of a short leg fieldsman and then ballooned in the air it couldn't be caught?

Click to expand...

That's the ball ballooning in the air. Not the batsman just incase you were confused.

James90 said:

Are you meaning to say if the batsman hit the ball into the helmet of a short leg fieldsman and then ballooned in the air it couldn't be caught?

Click to expand...

It'd be a dead ball, so the batsman wouldn't be out. In the Karachi test against the Windies Imran Farhat at short leg caught Shiv (I think), but the on field umpires had to refer to the third umpire to make sure the ball hadn't hit the helmet's visor before he caught it.

James90 said:

That's the ball ballooning in the air. Not the batsman just incase you were confused.

Click to expand...

I needed that laugh after what happened earlier. Thanks.

back about 100 years or so they actually had the inside edge onto pad law change, but it didnt last long cos the umpires said there was no way to tell where the ball was goin, stupid change if u ask me. The law about kicking the ball away from the stumps would have to be changed as well if this was the case as effectively if you kick it away its lbw and then the umpires would have to say whether the bails would have been knocked off by a ball trickling on to the stumps! Crazy

nightprowler10 said:

It'd be a dead ball, so the batsman wouldn't be out. In the Karachi test against the Windies Imran Farhat at short leg caught Shiv (I think), but the on field umpires had to refer to the third umpire to make sure the ball hadn't hit the helmet's visor before he caught it.

Click to expand...

Okay so the rule is still enforced but do you agree that it's an odd ruling and serves no logical purpose? If so then shouldn't rule be removed?

James90 said:

Okay so the rule is still enforced but do you agree that it's an odd ruling and serves no logical purpose? If so then shouldn't rule be removed?

Click to expand...

Oh I do agree its stupid, but to change the law that you mentioned, they'd first have to make amendments to the law that deems the ball dead in the first place.

andyc said:

As it is, I don't see any problem with the LBW laws. I mean, it's not as if teams are continually making 600 runs every innings as bowlers fail to get them out, and we're hardly seeing defensive cricket in terms of batting (which was, IIRC, why the LBW laws were brought in in the first place). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

archie mac said:

I agree

Also I think they should change the LBW law to help the bowler. I would suggest it should still be out even if the batsman gets an edge into his pad. After all it is out bowled if the ball hits the bat first

Click to expand...

A lot of me thinks you are not entirely being serious with this suggestion.

Goughy said:

A lot of me thinks you are not entirely being serious with this suggestion.

Click to expand...

Well I do like to start a good debate, or otherwise