Ian Chappell’s suggestion extreme, but LBW rule can be refined

Nothing pleases humankind more than taking a drastic measure. Our brain has been wired in such a way that it believes that a change can only be sparked if and when a drastic measure is taken. Think about it: How many times have you felt bad about your lazy, dormant lifestyle and decided out of the blue that you were going to wake up at 5 AM the very next day and go for a jog in order to inculcate a change? Or how many times have you felt guilty about over-using your phone and decided that deactivating Facebook and Instagram was the only way of getting out of the addiction?

Instead of these solutions, have you ever contemplated either waking up an hour early or reducing the time spent on your phone by 30 minutes? Chances are that you might not have. And frankly, you aren’t to blame for it. The human brain fails to validate these small measures as a change and thus, it almost forces you to take a radical measure to set things straight. On top of this, it also gives you the illusion that the drastic measure will somehow undo the past and provide a fresh start, one that’s perfect and devoid of flaws. 

So you can kind of understand where Ian Chappell was coming from when he suggested his ‘tweaks’ to the existing LBW law: “The new lbw law should simply say: ‘Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire’s opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted. Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it’s going to hit the stumps, it’s out.”

According to Chappell, this aforementioned rule change would be a solution to level the playing field, to stop ‘pampered’ batsmen from misusing a rule which, he feels, has favoured the men with the willow in their hands. And to be honest, he is not wrong. Since the inception of cricket, with every passing decade, the freedom of the bowler-kind has been oppressed more and more, to such an extent that at times you feel like they exist in the game just to make up for the numbers and put over the batsmen. It is no more a level playing field and that’s a fact. However, the solution is not so simple and it just cannot be done in an instant by completely turning the tables around. Chappell’s suggestion is the equivalent of ‘mob justice’ and such a move would only lead to more chaos and imbalance. 

What’s the problem with Chappell’s suggestion?

Chappell’s suggestion would tilt the game in the bowler’s favour, yes, but the imbalance that such a move would bring to the sport would be so draconian that it could end up creating a ripple in cricket, as a whole. Such a change - removing the pitching outside leg-stump rule - would not only make it easier for the bowlers and encourage negative bowling, but it could end up affecting the way the sport is played. The move paves way for pacers - right from the grass-root levels - to virtually give up the art of swing/seam bowling, now that there is an easier way to get the batsman out - aim for the legs (preferably from around the wicket, if you’re a right-armer) and look to thud the ball into the pads.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with it, but it does feel like a Cricket 07-esque cheat code where there’s no way out for the poor batsman. It also fails to address the threat of the rough patches generated on wickets towards the latter stages of a Test match, which would almost certainly guarantee spinners a wicket if they manage to land one on the spot. While the intention behind the proposal is right, and while it would more than do its part in levelling the playing field, the fact remains that it would go down the ‘two wrong is equal to a right’ direction; a move so severe that it could end up killing the sport. 

However, there are other tweaks that can be considered which would not only be fairer but would also play its fair share in making the contest between bat and ball an even one.

Removing the impact outside off-stump parameter

One change that can - and should - be considered is completely ignoring the ‘impact outside-off’ criterion which, again, exists to protect the batsman. As per the current rule, should the impact - i.e. the moment the ball strikes the pad - not be in accordance with the line of the stumps, then the batsman is devoid of being given out unless he doesn’t offer a shot. In the case of the batsman not offering a shot, however, the impact becomes irrelevant and all that matters is if the ball goes on to hit the stumps.  

Now from an individualistic standpoint, I really do not buy into this ‘impact outside-off’ rule. Unlike the ‘pitching outside leg’ rule, this does not lead to negative bowling nor is this an easy or an unfair way to trap the batsman in front. This is a pretty biased rule that exists to save batsmen and time and again, we see batters exploit this to their advantage either whilst walking across the stumps or whilst playing the sweep shot. All you’re doing here, by removing the ‘impact outside off’ parameter, is rewarding the bowler.

After all, if you’re going to punish the batsman’s stupidity - by neglecting the impact if he doesn’t offer a shot - then it’s only fair that you reward a bowler’s skill, say in a situation where he beats the inside edge of the bat to strike the batsman’s pad. Of course, the element of patches outside off stump exist here too, but I guess it goes unsaid that the batsman, in this case, unlike the outside-leg-stump situation, will have a wide variety of options and shots that he can use to combat the threat; he won’t be bogged down or chained. 

Rule the batsman out if the ball pitches outside leg-stump - but only if the bowler is bowling from over the wicket

This is something interesting that could end up changing the life of leg-spinners and left-arm spinners in the world of cricket. This is an ideal scenario which is a mixture of the existing rule and Chappell’s suggestion. A right-hand batsman can be ruled out LBW even if the ball pitches outside his leg-stump, but ONLY IF the bowler (right-armer) has delivered the ball from over the wicket (in case of a left-arm bowler, around the wicket). Much like the point above, this pertains to rewarding the skill of the bowler. In the hypothetical scenario that a leg-spinner is bowling to a right-hand batsman from over the wicket, it would take a significant skill from the bowler’s end to drift and pitch the ball outside leg-stump and make it either hit the stump or hit the pad in front of the stumps.

But as per the existing rule, the batsman would be deemed not out due to the ball pitching outside leg, almost serving as an insult to the bowler’s hard work. This change would, however, mean that the bowler is rewarded, not providing the cushion for batsmen to be getting away despite being well and truly outfoxed, only due to the ball pitching outside leg stump. A right-arm leg spinner bowling from over the wicket was just a mere example; this also applies to a left-arm bowler bowling to a right-hand batsman from around the wicket or a right-arm off-spinner bowling to a left-hander from around the wicket or a left-arm wrist-spinner bowling to a left-hander from over the wicket.

The two rules which have been suggested are by no means perfect, either. However, they do demolish the blanket of safety that batsmen currently enjoy which, it can be said, is not so fair. For all we know, they could have their own cons - such as bringing about behavioral changes amongst spinners. But change has to begin somewhere, and hence instead of stripping batsmen naked - as Chappell suggested - maybe we would be better off just stealing their armer, for starters. But the merit, pros and cons of the change cannot be evaluated unless and until it is tested and hence, like how the DRS was gradually introduced, maybe it’s up to the ICC to sell the idea to the teams and convince them to start experimenting with it.