-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
LBW Laws
- Thread starter mike
- Start date
Lach
Thanks but I have looked at the laws and it is not clear. The logic is (as stated to me)
If in the opinion of the umpire the ball has not pitched and would pitch before hitting the stumps then the batsman cannot be given out as the umpire cannot be certain what the ball would do after pitching.
I understand this logic but it does not gel with what I see from International umpires.
Also it is difficult to give a bloke not out when he is 3 feet in front of the stumps and with the ball hitting his toe in line with middle !!!
Thanks but I have looked at the laws and it is not clear. The logic is (as stated to me)
If in the opinion of the umpire the ball has not pitched and would pitch before hitting the stumps then the batsman cannot be given out as the umpire cannot be certain what the ball would do after pitching.
I understand this logic but it does not gel with what I see from International umpires.
Also it is difficult to give a bloke not out when he is 3 feet in front of the stumps and with the ball hitting his toe in line with middle !!!
Bazza
International 12th Man
Or what if it was Shane Warne bowling around the wicket and the ball is to pitch on middle just in front of the crease?
Clearly you just have to judge each ball on it's merits.
Incidentally, in a recent national league game Michael Clarke was hit on the toe in front of about middle by an inswinging delivery from Glamorgan's Andrew Davies. The commentators said he was plumb, but I wasn't convinced the ball wasn't missing leg stump. Later when Michael Holding came on he said he thought it was missing, and encouraged the viewers to email in, and amongst viewers there was probably about a 50-50 split in opnions, suggesting there was at least enough doubt to give the benefit to the batsman.
Of course this was a long time after the event and I was only bitter at the time because Hants were doing so badly! But hopefully it is an example of when the ball can do as described and not be hitting the stumps.
Clearly you just have to judge each ball on it's merits.
Incidentally, in a recent national league game Michael Clarke was hit on the toe in front of about middle by an inswinging delivery from Glamorgan's Andrew Davies. The commentators said he was plumb, but I wasn't convinced the ball wasn't missing leg stump. Later when Michael Holding came on he said he thought it was missing, and encouraged the viewers to email in, and amongst viewers there was probably about a 50-50 split in opnions, suggesting there was at least enough doubt to give the benefit to the batsman.
Of course this was a long time after the event and I was only bitter at the time because Hants were doing so badly! But hopefully it is an example of when the ball can do as described and not be hitting the stumps.
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
Bazza said:Or what if it was Shane Warne bowling around the wicket and the ball is to pitch on middle just in front of the crease?
Clearly you just have to judge each ball on it's merits.
Incidentally, in a recent national league game Michael Clarke was hit on the toe in front of about middle by an inswinging delivery from Glamorgan's Andrew Davies. The commentators said he was plumb, but I wasn't convinced the ball wasn't missing leg stump. Later when Michael Holding came on he said he thought it was missing, and encouraged the viewers to email in, and amongst viewers there was probably about a 50-50 split in opnions, suggesting there was at least enough doubt to give the benefit to the batsman.
Of course this was a long time after the event and I was only bitter at the time because Hants were doing so badly! But hopefully it is an example of when the ball can do as described and not be hitting the stumps.
If a spin bowler hits a batsmen on the full then he has to assume the ball wont spin and just goes straight on.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
This has to be the biggest thread-digging of all time, ever.
Anyway, as far as I knew, there's nothing stopping the umpire giving LBW to a full toss so long as it's going dead straight at the stumps... obviously if it's swinging/turning and missing then don't give it, but if it's a dead straight pie that the batsman just hoiked across (à la Tino Best) then goodnight, mate.
Certainly would be off back to the pavilion if I was in t'middle, anyway...
Anyway, as far as I knew, there's nothing stopping the umpire giving LBW to a full toss so long as it's going dead straight at the stumps... obviously if it's swinging/turning and missing then don't give it, but if it's a dead straight pie that the batsman just hoiked across (à la Tino Best) then goodnight, mate.
Certainly would be off back to the pavilion if I was in t'middle, anyway...
You dug up a thread from nearly three years ago to say "it could indeed"? Idiot. 
laugh:
Adamc
Cricketer Of The Year
And I can tell you you're wrong...Richard said:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?p=329#post329