Friday, 30 July 2010

Buy the bye

Sidharth Monga thinks batsmen hit while trying to avoid the ball should not be entitled to leg-byes. Thoughts?


Kartikeya said...

He's wrong. There's a difference between trying to avoid getting hit, and making no attempt to play a shot.

Jonathan said...

The law certainly makes thatdistinction, I think rightly. Achettup pointed me to previous Cricinfo writers being against leg-byes altogether, which sort of does put the suggestion in a different light, even though it makes Monga's wording look stranger.

If anything, I think the avoiding-being-hit leg-byes should be less of a target, since that sort of bowling tactic should have those sort of risks attached, in my opinion.

David Barry said...

From my most preferred to least preferred:

- allow leg byes in all cases, regardless of whether a shot was attempted

- allow leg byes only when a shot is attempted

- the current law, but no leg byes allowed off a helmet (just like you can't take a catch off a helmet)

- the current law

- no leg byes.

I don't see why the batting side should be rewarded for an unsuccessful attempt to miss the ball entirely.

In any case, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. I don't think there'll be any heated flame wars over leg byes, like there are over chucking or ball tampering.

David Barry said...

Just to clarify on catches off helmets - I mean that you can't take a catch off a fieldsman's helmet.

Jonathan said...

Sometimes it's nice to discuss something without a flame war!

David, surely being rewarded for unsuccessful evasion isn't the biggest factor for you - it still happens in your most preferred situation! Where would you put the current law's predecessor - allowed in all cases as long as the contact isn't deliberate? I think the change to the current version was really only meant avoid the pitfalls of determining intent.

The helmet idea is interesting. Would that apply to runs off the bat as well?

David Barry said...

it still happens in your most preferred situation!

Uhhh, let me see if I can rescue what I said there. How about this: If we decide that batsman's intent is a crucial part of deciding whether leg byes can be scored (and I don't think we should), then I don't see that it makes any sense to reward unsuccessful evasions of the ball.

Where would you put the current law's predecessor
I don't think that this is really much different from the current law, in practice - if you're playing a shot or trying to evade the ball, then you're not deliberately playing with the pad. The only situation in which I can see a difference is if the batsman plays no shot and assumes that the ball will pass him, but it actually spins/swings into his pad. ie, accidental pad play.

Allowing leg byes for accidental pad play but not deliberate pad play would be closer to my most preferred law, but in practice it'd look pretty incoherent, so I prefer the current law.

(Unless there's something else I'm missing about the old law.)

The helmet idea is interesting. Would that apply to runs off the bat as well?
Hmmm... I guess for consistency's sake it should. My idea was that the helmet is hard and the ball can rebound off it at much higher speed than it can off a pad. I think the same argument applies for helmet vs unprotected head.

Kartikeya said...

So instead of letting the umpire make a simple judgment about whether or not a shot was attempted, and whether or not evasive action was taken, lets complicate the rule

1. Let's eliminate leg byes off protective equipment above the waist. Let's consider the possibility that batsmen are trying to head bouncers deliberately.

2. Let's allow the batsman to dispute an umpire disallowing him runs. Let's have reviews. :)