Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

Thread: LBW- Do you think the specifics are fair?

  1. #1
    International Debutant andmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Taking 39 steps
    Posts
    2,803

    LBW- Do you think the specifics are fair?

    (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?
    Last edited by andmark; 01-04-2010 at 09:19 AM.
    Well the Irish did it on St Patrick's day

    Rip Fardin Qayyumi, Bob Woolmer and Craig.
    No offence Neil
    "No good thing ever dies." Andy Dufresne. The Shawshank Redemption.
    "Don't interupt the emeny when they're making a mistake" Napoleon

  2. #2
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,510
    It's to stop bowlers from just attacking a batsman's pads all the time from around the wicket.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  3. #3
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,890
    Quote Originally Posted by andmark View Post

    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

  4. #4
    International Regular
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,536
    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.


  5. #5
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,071
    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.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
    - Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,930
    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.
    Last edited by Furball; 01-04-2010 at 12:09 PM.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,510
    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?

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,766
    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.

  9. #9
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,525
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    Yeah, the "struck him outside the line" defence irritates me far more than pitching outside leg.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,843
    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.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  14. #14
    vcs
    vcs is offline
    International Coach vcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,305
    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.

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    They're a bit unfair, but I'd be fairly loathe to change either for fear of altering the game too much tbh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Fair enough Freddy....I eat my words
    By Zinzan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 27-06-2014, 12:01 PM
  2. The ICC Fair Play Award
    By Tim in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 15-09-2004, 11:46 PM
  3. God save our Queen...Advance Australia Fair
    By Jamee999 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 26-11-2003, 01:53 AM
  4. England or Somerset?
    By jf2001 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 19-05-2003, 01:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •