LBW- Do you think the specifics are fair?

[andmark]

(I realise this thread has probably been made before, but I searched for it, and it wasn't there)

[From the Laws Of Cricket].1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

Now I completely disagree with how a batsmen can't be out LBW if the ball pitches outside leg. What does that leave leg-spin bowlers to the majority of batsmen of whom are right handed? They can't get them out LBW. I believe, if a ball is going to hit the wickets, but the ball is blocked by the batsmen's body, no matter where it pitches should be out.

What do you think?

[Uppercut]

It's to stop bowlers from just attacking a batsman's pads all the time from around the wicket.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by andmark

Now I completely disagree with how a batsmen can't be out LBW if the ball pitches outside leg. What does that leave leg-spin bowlers to the majority of batsmen of whom are right handed? They can't get them out LBW. I believe, if a ball is going to hit the wickets, but the ball is blocked by the batsmen's body, no matter where it pitches should be out.

What do you think?

I think the lbw law is fine but you'll probably be more interested to learn that Sir Donald Bradman shared your view

[Jakester1288]

I agree with Andmark, I've often thought of this before, seeing plumb LBW's turned down because they pitch slightly out of line enrages me, particularly if the team I'm supporting is bowling.

[BoyBrumby]

It's a view I occasionally have sympathy for; it seems unjust to me that, were the ball to actually hit the stumps having pitched outside leg, a batsman is out but if his pad intervenes he isn't. Had Gatt got his pad in the way of it, Warney's "ball of the century" wouldn't be nearly so remembered now.

I appreciate the rule was originally made to discourage an overly negative line being bowled, but with umpires now having the option to "wide" bowlers who constantly pitch the ball outside leg ("Ashley's Law") the need isn't quite so pressing.

Would also like to see any ball that strikes a batsman and would go on to hit the pegs be able to be given as LBW regardless of whether a shot is offered or not too.

[GingerFurball]

Yeah, the "struck him outside the line" defence irritates me far more than pitching outside leg.

edit: although the pitching outside leg rule means that a bowler can't come round the wicket to a RHB and attack the rough.

[Uppercut]

If I were to make one change to the lbw law it would be to allow umpires to "guess" that the ball might have hit the stumps when batsmen are repeatedly padding up. If it wasn't hitting the stumps, why did the batsman bother kicking it away?

[Cevno]

If the rule of pitching outside leg not being a lBW ,is removed then facing left hand slow bowlers and even left hand quick bowlers(to a lesser extent) would become really difficult for right handers from over the wicket.

And same applies to left handed batsmen ,when facing right handed bowlers.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It's to stop bowlers from just attacking a batsman's pads all the time from around the wicket.

The best and most succinct explanation I've heard. When you put it like this, you can see exactly why they have the rule. And I speak as a long-suffering legspinner

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Yeah, the "struck him outside the line" defence irritates me far more than pitching outside leg.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

If I were to make one change to the lbw law it would be to allow umpires to "guess" that the ball might have hit the stumps when batsmen are repeatedly padding up. If it wasn't hitting the stumps, why did the batsman bother kicking it away?

These are the two points I wanted to make.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It's to stop bowlers from just attacking a batsman's pads all the time from around the wicket.

Add over the wicket as well.

Wonder how many Lbw's Ashley giles could have gotten.

[SmityNZ]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

If I were to make one change to the lbw law it would be to allow umpires to "guess" that the ball might have hit the stumps when batsmen are repeatedly padding up. If it wasn't hitting the stumps, why did the batsman bother kicking it away?

It's got very little to do with the ball hitting the stumps...it's more to do with nicks, inside edges etc. But I would say benefit of the doubt shouldn't apply when a batsman fails to play a shot - so many times I've seen umpires say 'well it might have hit, it might not have'. Well in that case, they haven't played a shot so they don't deserve the benefit.

And any talk of being hit outside the line being okayed in the lbw law is silliness. The rule is fine how it is.

[Neil Pickup]

I don't think I've ever given a batsman not out when hit on the pads not offering a shot. I am of the opinion that they have a bat and ought to use it.

[vcs]

The batsman shouldn't be expected to risk his wicket in being forced to be positive when a bowler repeatedly baits him with a negative line. If a bowler is pitching repeatedly outside leg to restrict scoring and the batting team is OK with a stalemate, they should have the option of kicking it away.

[Matt79]

They're a bit unfair, but I'd be fairly loathe to change either for fear of altering the game too much tbh.