Qadir gets PCB notice for criticising Pak's WT20 show

New Delhi, May 10: Former Australia captain Ian Chappell has proposed radical changes in the LBW laws, stating that a batsman should be given out leg before as long as the ball is hitting the stumps irrespective of the spot of its landing and impact.

Chappell also said captains should agree on one way of working up the ball which will encourage swing bowling, even as the ICC is considering the use of artificial substances to shine the ball instead of sweat and saliva in post-COVID-19 scenario.

"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'," he wrote in a column for ESPNcricinfo.

"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."

The 76-year-old said the change in lbw law would attract expected criticism from the batsmen but it would make the game more fair.

"There will be screams of horror - particularly from pampered batsmen - but there are numerous positives this change would bring to the game. Most important is fairness.

"If a bowler is prepared to attack the stumps regularly, the batsman should only be able to protect his wicket with the bat. The pads are there to save the batsman from injury not dismissal.

"It would also force batsmen to seek an attacking method to combat a wristspinner pitching in the rough outside the right-hander's leg stump," said Chappell.

He cited Sachin Tendulkar's example on how he negotiated Shane Warne's round the wicket tactic during the 1997-98 Test series in India.

"Contrast Sachin Tendulkar's aggressive and successful approach to Shane Warne coming round the wicket in Chennai in 1997-98 with a batsman who kicks away deliveries pitching in the rough and turning in toward the stumps. Which would you rather watch?

"The current law encourages "pad play" to balls pitching outside leg while this change would force them to use their bat. The change would reward bowlers who attack the stumps and decrease the need for negative wide deliveries to a packed off-side field," he said.

Chappell said his proposed change to the lbw law would also cut down "frivolous" DRS challenges.

"This change to the lbw law would also simplify umpiring and result in fewer frivolous DRS challenges. Consequently, it would speed up a game that has slowed drastically in recent times.

"It would also make four-day Tests an even more viable proposition as mind-numbing huge first-innings totals would be virtually non-existent."

On the substitute of shining the ball without sweat and saliva, Chappell said international captains should find out a way of working up the ball.

"With ball-tampering always a hot topic, in the past I've suggested that administrators ask international captains to construct a list (i.e. the use of natural substances) detailing the things bowlers feel will help them to swing the ball.

"From this list, the administrators should deem one method to be legal with all others being punishable as illegal," the cricketer-turned-commentator added.

New Delhi, Jun 13: Five centrally contracted Indian cricketers including Cheteshwar Pujara, Ravindra Jadeja and KL Rahul have been issued notices by National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) for failing to disclose their whereabouts as the BCCI cited "password glitch" as the reason for delay.

The other players to have received the notice include women stars Smriti Mandhana and Deepti Sharma, who are among the five cricketers in the 110 strong National Registered Testing Pool (NRTP). Speaking to PTI, NADA DG Navin Agarwal confirmed that BCCI has sent an official explanation for their five NRTP players' failure to submit whereabouts.

"There are two ways to fill up the whereabouts form in the ADAMS (Anti Doping Administration & Management Systems) software. Either athlete does it himself or association fills it up on his or her behalf," Agarwal said. "Now athletes in some discipline aren't educated enough or do not have access to internet and find themselves unable to handle the whereabouts clause of the ADAMS or upload the filled up

"They use assistance of their concerned federations. So federations have accepted responsibility of uploading their whereabouts," Agarwal said.

He said cricketers too at times find it tough to complete the process on their own. "Similarly in cricket also, although these people are well qualified and they can do it, perhaps they don't have the time for whatever reasons, so the federation concerned, the BCCI has taken upon itself the responsibility of uploading their whereabouts." So why didnt BCCI upload the the three-month whereabouts this time?

"Well they have given an explanation which appears to be reasonable but a decision will be taken. They have said that there has been a glitch with regards to password in ADAMS. Now they have said that issue has been resolved," Agarwal added. NADA DG added that "BCCI's explanation will be discussed as to whether it will be counted as one of three filing failures or not. It will be decided on the explanation given and how they (BCCI) proceed from here."

While country has been under lockdown, the rule to submit three months of whereabouts is mandatory. Three such failures to disclose leads to one Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), which could lead up to two years of suspension upon hearing.

While BCCI has "officially gagged" its employees from talking to the media, it couldn't be ascertained that why as normal a glitch as a password error took days to resolve. A BCCI veteran, who has been privy to cricket operations, asked why the five cricketers were not told to upload the form themselves.

"This was lockdown period where they are not living out of suitcases. Some of the names have also engaged in multiple instagram chats and podcasts which their agents are managing," he said.

"If cricket operations team were having a glitch in fixing password, well the five cricketers could have been asked to do so and they would have done it individually with some guidance. "Probably NADA would be lenient this time but if it becomes an official warning, then who's responsible," he added.