David Dillon
Accountant
Sydney, Australia
25 Likes
1 Followers
1 Followers
I was never much of a bowler, but I believe that if a batsman is hit on the pads without offering a shot ALL the benefit should go to the bowler.
If the umpire says not out and DRS shows it clipping the stumps by 1 mm, to me that's out, fair and square.
It happened a few times in 22/23 to Nathan Lyon, where the batsman got the benefit of DRS because less than 50% of the ball was hitting.
For 'not offer a shot' LBW decisions, surely DRS is there to protect that batsman from the umpires howlers, not to protect the umpires from their own howlers.
As it currently stands when not offering a shot, a batsman is afforded the same protection as one that actually took a risk and played a shot but missed.
Fair enough to send it upstairs if you've been robbed... but otherwise use your bat, that's what it's there for.
Responses
For me I don't think it is out. Ball tracking is not 100 percent accurate. That's why there is protocol in pla e that 50 percent of the ball must be hitting the stumps.
you cannot 100 percent guarantee that the bails will be removed on impact if the ball is just touching the wickets. I have seen at least on 10 occasions the ball flicking the stump. There will be always an allowance for technology. The human eye and instinct are just as accurate in my opinion