Leg byes doesn't make sense

[Trichromatic]

You have rules which either rewards skills or penalises mistakes. Luck is also involved at times. But can't think of any rule which penalises without mistake of one side.

Free hit is given because bowler made mistake of overstepping.

Wide, no balls are given because bowler made mistake of overstepping or spraying the ball. 

Caught out is given primarily because 1. batsman couldn't control their shot and/or fielding was great. Basically rewards cricketing skill of bowling and fielding and penalises batting mistakes.

Bowled is given because penalises mistake of batsman. LBW is given so that batsman doesn't stop with legs deliberately and penalises mistake of missing stump to stump delivery. It rewards good bowling - pace, swing, turn, outfoxing batsman.

Stump out is given as it penalises batsman for leaving crease and it rewards bowler for beating the batsman.

 

Which skill does fielding team is penalised for when leg byes is given? Which skill batting team is rewarded for when they miss the ball with bat?

 

If anything it's mistake of batsman when the missed the ball and skill of bowler. So, bowler should be rewarded, at bare minimum it shouldn't cost them.

[addicted4444]

Only people who never actually play cricket can come up with such ridiculous ideas. 
 

The vast majority of cricket is played by kids and normal adults. Not professionals in league settings. 
 

Get rid of leg byes and the majority of games played will not even end because there will be so many arguments over whether something should be a run or not, based on whether it touched the bat. 

[Trichromatic]

7 minutes ago, addicted4444 said:

Only people who never actually play cricket can come up with such ridiculous ideas. 
 

The vast majority of cricket is played by kids and normal adults. Not professionals in league settings. 
 

Get rid of leg byes and the majority of games played will not even end because there will be so many arguments over whether something should be a run or not, based on whether it touched the bat. 

 

Umpiring mistakes should not be the reason for allowing runs. 

 

Kids play without leg bye rule in gully cricket. 

[Lord]

legbye are there to discourage negative bowling

 

[Vickydev]

Cricket is ultimately how many runs are scored, i.e., how many times the batsmen run across the 22 yards...Its not about any skills/mistakes. And they can do so at all times as long as they dont get out... whether they hit the ball, miss the ball and goes through to the keeper, or when it hits their bodies. There is no justification to it, it just is that way.

[Vickydev]

And again byes can be taken at all times, the keeper doesnt have to miss it. It can be perfectly within his grasp when bastmen can attempt a run, only thing is the percentages are not in their favour attempting the said run. Check death overs and how batsmen will run at everything and anything.

[addicted4444]

13 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Umpiring mistakes should not be the reason for allowing runs. 

 

Kids play without leg bye rule in gully cricket. 

That’s not the reason for the rule to exist. The rule exists for other reasons. 
 

However, only someone who does not actually play cricket would suggest the rule be removed. 
 

Bringing up gully cricket is even more hilarious because you do realize there’s a massive difference between playing a game with rubber/tennis balls and no pads, and playing a proper game with pads and a leather ball. 

[addicted4444]

15 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Yes, this is another part which doesn't make sense.

 

Basically all rules are part of the mistakes and skills of the players.

 

What's the skill and mistake invovled in leg bye and umpire giving it out or not out. Why should it affect the score?

 

Just illogical.

Actually, by your logic, leg byes should absolutely be legal, whereas runs from edges should be eliminated. 
 

The first thing to understand is that down the leg wicket does not belong to the bowler at all. The bowler is supposed to bowl the ball from the leg wicket towards off. That’s why if a ball pitches outside leg, it’s immediately not out in an LBW even if it impacts in line and is going on to hit. 
 

So unless the batsman has walked across the stumps and is standing outside off when they get hit, if the ball hits their body without touching their bat, they’re either LBW (if it’s going on to hit the stumps), or the bowler bowled the ball in an area that is not considered legitimate. So by your logic, leg byes should be runs because they represent a mistake on the bowler’s part. 
 

An edge, on the other hand, usually indicates an excellent delivery by the bowler, and a mistake by the batsman. So why should they get any runs when they edge the ball?

[zen]

Leg Byes should be counted as batsman runs and not extras. IMO, the use of foot esp. when a batsman is playing a stroke should be seen as a part of batman's scoring repertoire. 

 

Extras should be byes, wides, no-balls, and penalty runs. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trichromatic]

I asked this question to MCC and got following response:

 

Thank you for your question about the Laws of Cricket.

 

I have had a quick look back through the history of the Laws, and leg byes have been present since at least the 19^th century – so they are a well-established way of scoring.

 

I think the issue with your thinking is not asking why leg byes should be scored, but why they should not. At almost any point, while the ball is in play, the batters are permitted to run. The exception is if they have done something that is expressly to defend their wicket (rather than score) – that is to say a legal second strike or no attempt to play or avoid the ball.

 

In all other circumstances, if the ball is in play the batters are permitted to run – the fielding side, in return, get the opportunity to effect a run out. In the same way that a striker who misses the ball, or mis-cues it, is permitted to run, so is a batter who misses the ball and is hit by it.

 

I hope that provides some clarity.

[vvvslaxman]

49 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

I asked this question to MCC and got following response:

 

Thank you for your question about the Laws of Cricket.

 

I have had a quick look back through the history of the Laws, and leg byes have been present since at least the 19^th century – so they are a well-established way of scoring.

 

I think the issue with your thinking is not asking why leg byes should be scored, but why they should not. At almost any point, while the ball is in play, the batters are permitted to run. The exception is if they have done something that is expressly to defend their wicket (rather than score) – that is to say a legal second strike or no attempt to play or avoid the ball.

 

In all other circumstances, if the ball is in play the batters are permitted to run – the fielding side, in return, get the opportunity to effect a run out. In the same way that a striker who misses the ball, or mis-cues it, is permitted to run, so is a batter who misses the ball and is hit by it.

 

I hope that provides some clarity.

 

 

I made that in my first post. When the ball is "live" not declared "dead" you are permitted to steal run.  Overthrows, leg byes, byes whole lot of things come under this.  Only exception is when it is intentionally deflected. Umpire has to make that call.

[coffee_rules]

if batsmen's mistakes should not be rewarded, no runs should be awarded for edges, gloved hits, etc

[coffee_rules]

10 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

 

I made that in my first post. When the ball is "live" not declared "dead" you are permitted to steal run.  Overthrows, leg byes, byes whole lot of things come under this.  Only exception is when it is intentionally deflected. Umpire has to make that call.

in the spirit of cricket, batters don't run overthrows if the ball thrown at stumps gets unintentionally deflected by the batsman (any part of the body) , even though legally, they can run

[vvvslaxman]

17 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

in the spirit of cricket, batters don't run overthrows if the ball thrown at stumps gets unintentionally deflected by the batsman (any part of the body) , even though legally, they can run

 

As long as it is within law they can run. Intentional deflection should be called out. But not unintentional.  We run if the ball hits the opposition fielder unintentionally  don't we?  It is a fine line. 

[Trichromatic]

44 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

if batsmen's mistakes should not be rewarded, no runs should be awarded for edges, gloved hits, etc

 

My point was that mistakes should be rewarded if it is exception or luck, not a norm. 

 

Edges should be rewarding because of various factors.

 

Someone like Pujara plays with soft hands, so his edges fall short and slip might miss.

 

Someone who goes hard at ball and edges it, it shows clarity in shot making. 

 

If batsman edges it and keeper misses it, then it's a reward for fielding mistakes.

 

Glove hits are rewarded because gloves cover part of the bat and batsman can get out also. 

[coffee_rules]

32 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

My point was that mistakes should be rewarded if it is exception or luck, not a norm. 

 

Edges should be rewarding because of various factors.

 

Someone like Pujara plays with soft hands, so his edges fall short and slip might miss.

 

Someone who goes hard at ball and edges it, it shows clarity in shot making. 

 

If batsman edges it and keeper misses it, then it's a reward for fielding mistakes.

 

Glove hits are rewarded because gloves cover part of the bat and batsman can get out also. 

Runs are not about fairness to be awarded only on good intent or for penalty of fielding team. Bowlers and fielder get multiple failed chances to get a batsman out, but batsman gets out for one failed chance. So, as ICC said, anything is fair as long as the ball is in play. Bowlers bounces out batsman, also gets penalized by a top edged six. 
 

Good that you got a response from ICC, bekaar pade rehte hain warna!

[RedFever]

You are forgetting the base logic that intentional padding is not awarded as legbyes.

 

Legbyes are awarded when it hits any part of the body unintentionally, when the batsmen is trying to play a shot. Makes complete sense, why should this rule be removed  ?

[Vancouver]

To keep fielders on their toes and show urgency. Without LBs, there will be far less action. Likes of Jadeja will walk to the ball like Sehwag takes run between wickets. Cricket is already considered a slow moving boring game, no LB will kill it. If there's a risk to lose your wicket if caught in front of wickets, there should be a reward too.

[sarcastic]

Lets imagine a situation where we remove leg byes from cricket. 
Then what does that mean. The ball is dead as soon as the batsman fails to connect with bat/glove and hits somewhere on his body. 
The fielding team will be in no hurry to fetch it from the ground and there will be lot of time wasted in the match. 

Cricket, (like baseball) is already slow game with multiple stop-starts throughout the game unlike most sports (such as soccer/hockey/basketball) where there are relatively limited number of time-outs/breaks.

So, removing leg byes will introduce even more gaps and the fielding team can even use the strategy of deliberately wasting more time (Not that they cannot do it now but with leg byes removed, there is no hurry on the part of fielders to field it if they know the batsman did not bat it).

So, answering the question of @Trichromatic, "why should fielding team be penalized". They are penalized because of the same reason the batsmen can steal runs off an edge or when the keeper does not collect the ball during byes. If it is keeper's responsibility to keep the ball, it is fielder's responsibility to field it until the ball becomes dead. 

[SRT100]

On 11/7/2021 at 7:56 PM, Trichromatic said:

 

Gloves is considered part of the bat as gloves cover handles. Balancing part is batsmen getting run off the gloves also. If gloves are off the handle and ball brushes it, then batsman is not out as per rules. 

 

Leg byes isn't balancing part of that.

 

Ive never seen it happen, but I do know these rules, but I wonder, if your hand is off the handle and the ball brushes it in front of the stumps, I presume you can be given out LBW?

 

I think this would be given out?

 

I guess no different to Tendulkar's infamous Shoulder Before Wicket in Adelaide many years ago.