LBW Outside the line

[nexxus]

Is there a reason that LBW's outside the line of off stump aren't given? Seems a bit of a mindless rule to me, I understand why balls pitched outside leg aren't out, but I don't get this one.

LBW's are hard to get in any event, with everything horribly skewed towards the batsman, it just seems a bit unfair that the ball has to hit on the line of the stumps as well, which means that it the delivery is swinging like a demon or sharply turning, it's usually going to miss the stumps if it hits in line and then not out.

The exception when not playing a shot is a tacit admission that it's a crap rule. It's also infuriating that umpires continue to play into the whole bat behind that pad non-shot that batsmen play way too often.

 

[Dravid]

Uh, it's LBWs that are HIT outside the line of off stump. Not that land outside the line of stump. And it makes sense

 

[nexxus]

Ja, I know it's hit outside the line, sorry.

So why does it make sense? You can't just state that it does and then not say anything else.

 

[Dravid]

Ja, I know it's hit outside the line, sorry.

So why does it make sense? You can't just state that it does and then not say anything else.

Because most likely it will miss the stumps.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Because most likely it will miss the stumps.

What? That's one of the most poorly constructed arguments of all time, ever, period. Inswing or off-spin bowling from over the wicket will hit a batsman outside the line and be going on to hit far more often than the same type of bowling if it hits in line, as it will be going down leg.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Agreed. I'm starting to wonder just how much cricket Dravid has watched in his lifetime.

 

[Dravid]

I was being sarcastic. I should seriously start using smilies.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I was being sarcastic. I should seriously start using smilies.

Was that meant to be sarcastic?

 

[wpdavid]

I'm with nexxus on this one - it's always seemed an odd rule to me. If nothing else, it would do away with batsmen planting their bats behind their pads to get away with the current ruling.

 

[Nate]

Dravid - not fooling anyone. It`s alright to admit a blunder man, you`ll never make more than me anyway.

I believe a ball hitting a batsman outside off-stump and hitting the stumps should be out LBW. But I`m for balls pitching outside leg-stump being ruled not-out.

 

[Turbinator]

Dravid man , that sounded so bait.

 

[adharcric]

Did Dravid just get owned?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Did Dravid just get owned?

Nah, it was more served or told.

 

[Goughy]

Because most likely it will miss the stumps.

What? That's one of the most poorly constructed arguments of all time, ever, period. Inswing or off-spin bowling from over the wicket will hit a batsman outside the line and be going on to hit far more often than the same type of bowling if it hits in line, as it will be going down leg.

Neil, You dont have my self-control . I read that, counted to ten and then moved on. Didnt quite know how to answer

 

[silentstriker]

Neil, You dont have my self-control . I read that, counted to ten and then moved on. Didnt quite know how to answer

Haha, same. It's rare when I see a post and I don't answer. That was one of them.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Haha, same. It's rare when I see a post and I don't answer. That was one of them.

Would I be right in guessing 99.9% of the other posts are mine?

 

[silentstriker]

Would I be right in guessing 99.9% of the other posts are mine?

Nah, you're harmless. Lillian Thompson, on the other hand.....

 

[PhoenixFire]

Nah, you're harmless. Lillian Thompson, on the other hand.....

Don't get me started............

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nah, you're harmless. Lillian Thompson, on the other hand.....

It's alright, I'm a doctor.

 

[silentstriker]

It's alright, I'm a doctor.