Inside-edges on to the pads

[silentstriker]

The only very remotely possible case for LBW's pitching outside leg stump would be the left arm seamer to the right-handed batsman or the right arm seamer to the left-handed batsman where the ball might pitch a couple of inches outside leg stump and be going on to hit. But if you get into different rules for different types of bowler to different handed batsman it's just way too complicated. There's is no argument for allowing spinners to get LBW's outside leg as any two bit spinner can land it in the foot marks three feet wide and hope for the best, forcing batsman to play at that sort of delivery would be total stupidity.

If he lands it three feet wide and it doesn't spin, its a wide.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If he lands it three feet wide and it doesn't spin, its a wide.

The point is that the batsman has no way of knowing whether it will spin or not and is therefore forced to play at it with the bat instead of just getting his pads in the way if you bring LBW into the equation.

 

[steds]

Yes, but obviously they had no intention of playing it there.

Would you also argue that edges that fall short of the slips and dropped catches should be given out too, on the basis that the batsman generally doesn't have the intention of playing it towards a fielder?

 

[Fiery]

Bat before wicket. Genius!

Well its better then first chance theory.

Well played. (24 posts and you're seeing the ball like a pumpkin)

 

[Richard]

Nah, was poorly played indeed. And don't judge the time by the postcount - there's substantial evidence that "Glacier" has actually been around rather longer.