What law would you get rid of?

no, it is logic.

one mistake, if the fielders/ umpires are on their game, that batsman is out.

if the bowler doesn't take a wicket with one ball, he will always have a chance with next ball.

in my opinion (and i'm a bowler by the way), the benefit of the doubt should always go to the batsman, because i think it is better that a batsman who may have been out is not given, than a batsman is given out when the decision was in doubt.

wickets change games, a turned down LBW appeal does not. i'm not defending howlers here, and with DRS hopefully we won't see too many of those, but if there is reasonable boubt for the umpire, then he has to give it not out.

If there are lights there to be used during bad light then use the bloody things.
That last tour Australia had to Sth.Africa was a joke, people pay good money to watch a days cricket along with the sponsors and the corporates so they deserve there monies worth instead of players coming off a couple of overs after the tea break......what goes around comes around at the end of the summer and levels out.

defo sydney, it's when it's fine outside & the umpire leave for bad light!

If the ball is clipping the stumps, that should be out (unless it pitches outside leg and not in line). I'm not saying to give lbws if the ball is missing.

The game of cricket was once a simple game to watch on the t.v when we didn't have all this hot-spot, microphone in the stump or 6 different angles after the first one shows the foot behind the line.....yes we would argue with an umpires decision but only until the next delivery.
Now it can take 6-8 minutes to bowl one bloody over with all this new garbage invented solely for the idiot box.

The day will come very soon where we will struggle to have enough quality umpires because of all this scrutiny, I'm sure as hell wouldn't be one with big punters knowing exactly why they didn't collect, I respect my life a bit more then that.

of course if it is out, it should be given out, but if the umpire is unsure, the benefit of the doubt goes with the batsman

"of course if it is out, it should be given out, but if the umpire is unsure, the benefit of the doubt goes with the batsman"

Cheers for that. But since we're in the 'what law would you change' article, I suggested a change.

Tbh I think we'll eventually get to the stage where hawk-eye makes most of the decisions.

I hope you are wrong hazsa19 I really do hope you are wrong......human error has always been a part of any sport (which doesn't mean cheating)

Take gridiron in America for instance they were the first one's to bring video replay decisions into sport I think (correct me if I'm wrong) and it has proven to be in-correct a lot more times then they would wish.....tennis as well has had more then it's share of controversy over the years.
Soccer (football) has shown the way by resisting in bringing in the video for decisions and it has kept the game simple, although they are getting closer to having a camera on the goal line.
If we go down the line of not needing the ump's we may as well go the whole hog and bring in bowling machines.....
I certainly hope you are wrong hazsa....

That's the way we're heading! Sport doesn't need controversy to be great. Sport is about the players, not the officials. Any chance to improve the accuracy of decision making should be welcomed.

I can't comment on 'gridiron', but your examples of tennis and football are all wrong. Tennis has seen much less controversy since bringing in hawk-eye. Instead of yelling at umpires they challenge the call. And as a pretty keen tennis watcher, i've not yet seen a player dispute the call of hawk-eye.

And as for football, you could not be more out of sync. Every saturday in England we have a 2 hour football phone in that follows the days matches. It seems every week there are people crying out for Fifa to bring in technology, or for the FA to go it alone and introduce technology. Sepp Blatter is a general target of ridicule for his backwards attitude towards technology in football.