Chappell's Law

Fantasy Bob's interest pricked up when he noticed a headline suggesting that no less an authority than Ian Chappell is advocating the end of the LBW law.

Chappell -why has he got it in for Fantasy Bob?

This would be welcome news, for, as FB has written before the difficulty of interpreting the LBW law in the lower leagues is formidable.  As a consequence,in many areas of the lower leagues, LBW was effectively abolished many years ago.

In those regions the LBW law has a similar status to those whacky laws that are still on the statute book and which feature in silly season newspaper articles every now and then.  You know the type of thing - it is illegal to fire a cannon within 300 yards of a person’s residence, to the deliberate annoyance of that resident. This is one of the more effective statutes, more effective than the LBW law anyway, since to date there have been no prosecutions.

FB was therefore pleased that Chappell's intervention could mean that the authorities might catch up with the practical realities of the game.  He was crestfallen then to read on and discover that Chappell was not advocating abolition, but only revision.  The former Aussie captain suggests that the part of the law which says a batsman cannot be out to a ball pitching outside the leg stump should be done away with.  His argument is that a bowler should be rewarded for attacking the stumps, not the batsman protected by being able to kick the ball away with impunity.

FB doesn't know what he has done to upset Mr Chappell - he always had a high regard for him and expected that sentiment to be reciprocated.  But no.  Chappell's proposal is aimed directly at FB.  It is deliberately designed to bring him to his knees.

For surely Chappell knows of FB's difficulties against leg spin bowling.  Chappell's suggestion that the batsman should be encouraged to use the bat is all very well. An idea noble in sentiment - not unlike communism perhpas.  But, in FB's case, significantly lacking practicality.   In the unlikely event that FB knew where his leg stump was, his only defence to the leg break pitching outside is to stick his posterior at it (padding up implies moving his feet which is not part of FB's repertoire at thecrease).  The bat affords him balance in that manouvre.  It has no other use.

But it is worse than that.  In FB's long list of least favourite bowling actions, second spot is occupied by left arm over the wicket.  In FB's opinion this is a wholly illegal action, but the authorities have consistely overlooked his pleas to outlaw it.  Were Chappell's proposal to be accepted, this action  becomes far more threatening.  Many balls from these bowlers might well hit the stumps but they pitch outside leg.  If these are now wicket balls, FB might have cause to promote this action to the number one slot.  He may never score a run again.

FB must throw himself on the mercy of the authorities.  Is this really what they want?