LBW law

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Recently there have been a few poor umpiring decisions regarding inside edges and lbw.

Here is my opinion. If a player gets an inside edge and it hits the wicket, then hes out no question (barring noball)
Therefore if LBW is the obstruction of the ball hitting the wicket providing it has picthed in line with leg, then why not, if in the opinion of the umpire (as with regular LBW) the ball will hit the stumps off the inside edge, shouldn't it be given out? The ball is being obstructed by the pad. If it had missed the pad, he would've been out bowled.

This will allow the bowlers to get back into what is becoming more and more a batsman's game and make cricket more competitive as a result.

 

[royGilchrist]

Thats a good point, but then the same thing applies to the LBW appeal being denied on deliveries pitched outside leg stump. The ball if not hit the pads would have hit wickets.

 

[marc71178]

They're both wildly different scenarios IMO, but it'd certainly make the game a lot different if outside leg were allowed for LBW!

Inside edge would remove a lot of controversy, but Cricket for me thrives on that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Just think about how many LBW decisons will go the bowler's way if that were the case. It would turn the game into a farce.

Besides, the LBW law's intention isn't just to prevent batsmen from using their pads full stop; it's to stop batsmen from using their pads as a primary defence and just padding the ball away. Back in the old days, it was a real problem i.e. it was almost impossible to get batsmen out. So the law was invented to prevent batsmen from just putting their legs in front and if they missed it and were in front, they'dbe given out.

If you get an inside edge, the presumption is that you're trying to play at the ball so shouldn't be given out.

 

[The Argonaut]

I concur with Top Cat.

 

[royGilchrist]

Nope Marc, I think the same reasoning applies to both scenarios, and if one was allowed the other would have to be allowed using the same logical reasoning i.e. ball going into the wkts is stopped by the pads, hence batsman needs to be penalized.

Hence as TC said, it would shift the balance heavily in favour of the bowler and is not desirable and its too radical, the whole dynaics of the game change. Spinners will especially be bowling into the bowlers rough all the time, hoping to get an LBW.

 

[marc71178]

At the moment, if the inside edge is taken, it is in paying a shot. Mot balls hitting the pad after pitching outside leg are with no attempt at a shot - that was my reasoning.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My point is just that cricket is way too batsman oriented nowadays. Bowlers barely have a chance anymore.

 

[Gotchya]

If you get an inside edge, the presumption is that you're trying to play at the ball so shouldn't be given out.

Nobody has pointed out that once a batsman gets an inside edge there is no telling where it will end up. How can an umpire judge an angle which deflects the ball almost instantaneously ? I think thats the primary reason why LBW's are not given off inside edges, and not the presumption that the batsman is playing a shot.

 

[Gotchya]

My point is just that cricket is way too batsman oriented nowadays. Bowlers barely have a chance anymore.

On the contrary, i think that the one bouncer an over rule has made it even. Its a much more even battle out there now then before.