• 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 Legside Rule

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
Seen it on another forum and saw this post here:
As it stands today, this is unfair to the bowlers, extremely so, but not illegal because there is nothing in the laws to prevent him. I think the laws need to be modified to to allow LBW's to balls pitching on either si9de of the stumps and in the limited overs game, not to declare the legside wide for close deliveries (as is done presently) to balls pitched on either of the two leg sides (except genuinely wide balls of course).
What do you think? Should balls that pitch outside leg be given out, if they're gonna hit the wicket? Would be a major change in how the game is played.
 

SirBloody Idiot

Cricketer Of The Year
I've never quite grasped the whole concept of pitching outside leg-stump being given not out; but if it is purely in response to Pietersen essentially becoming a left-hander, then surely there are bigger fish to fry. It simply doesn't happen enough in cricket to warrant a change in the LBW laws and I'd prefer LBW laws to be consistent in all forms of cricket.

As for wides, the current rules governing them in one day cricket are ridiculously harsh and should be changed regardless.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Would make life hell for RH batsmen facing a good leg spinner. Let's do it. :D

In all seriousness, I think it would skew the game towards the bowlers, which won't play well into the interests of people trying to make money off cricket, so I obviously don't see it ever happening, and am not totally convinced if it needs to happen. We don't really need to change the LBW laws, but just make more seam friendly pitches.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Any time cricket removes the no-lbw-to-balls-pitching-outside-leg rule it'll almost certainly become a complete farce. Left-arm fingerspinners and even average right-arm stock-standard wristspinners would simply become infinitely more effective than any other bowler, because they could push the ball into the pads and make scoring difficult (playing accross the spin) but could still get lbws.

I'm quite happy with the lbw law as it currently is. If TV replays with technology were to be brought in to make almost every lbw decision correct, then the law might in fact need to be modified in favour of batsmen, as the current law being implemented correctly would mean many more lbws than we see currently - and that in itself is higher than it was 10 years ago.
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
It's very hard to hit anything on a length, just outside leg stump delivered by the left arm bowler to the right hand bat, especially at pace. A batsman would have no chance of lasting any amount of time if the ball could simply be speared towards his legs rather than at his bat.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Pitch outside leg, no LBW has to stay IMO. You can't have left armers coming over the wicket to right handers and just getting ridiculous angle aiming at the legs. Plus it'd remove/reduce the awesomeness of left arm in-swing to the right handers which has to pitch in line.

I can see why some people would want the "hit outside line of off stump playing a shot" removed however. I'm not sure about that though.
 

Isura

U19 Vice-Captain
Pitch outside leg, no LBW has to stay IMO. You can't have left armers coming over the wicket to right handers and just getting ridiculous angle aiming at the legs. Plus it'd remove/reduce the awesomeness of left arm in-swing to the right handers which has to pitch in line.

I can see why some people would want the "hit outside line of off stump playing a shot" removed however. I'm not sure about that though.
Ya, that certainly has more of a case for removal than the legside rule. Just getting outside the line of off stump shouldn't be rewarded if the batsmen has poor technique or doesn't attempt a genuine shot.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
Ya, that certainly has more of a case for removal than the legside rule. Just getting outside the line of off stump shouldn't be rewarded if the batsmen has poor technique or doesn't attempt a genuine shot.
That has no merit at all, if anything they should revert to the rule which makes the bowler pitch in line to get a LBW.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
Uhh, why?
To make the bowler bowl wicket to wicket to get a LBW. The pads are the batsman's second line of defence (which is why they're taught to play defensive shots with bat and pad close together) and when defending the wicket they shouldn't have to worry about anything that's outside the line. The current rule was only brought in because batsman abused the old rule by constantly kicking away the spinners. The rule as it stands now makes the batsman play at deliveries he shouldn't have to which gives the seamers an advantage they didn't used to have. A lot of the bowlers before this rule came in would have taken a truck load more wickets had they bowled under it.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Don't think it'd be too bad an addition if it was enforced exactly the same way as the current deliveries pitching outside off are. That is, that if it goes on to hit the batsman he's saved only if he's playing a shot.

As a deterrent to pad-play I can't think of many better options, since that's all it really stands to eliminate.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
Don't think it'd be too bad an addition if it was enforced exactly the same way as the current deliveries pitching outside off are. That is, that if it goes on to hit the batsman he's saved only if he's playing a shot.

As a deterrent to pad-play I can't think of many better options, since that's all it really stands to eliminate.
It would be a completely absurd addition outside leg stump forcing batsman to play at deliveries pitched in the rough three feet wide of the stumps allowing the spinners to loop it there negatively all day and take wickets.

Maybe if lbw correctly-given percentage goes up to close to 100%. It might be needed then.

Otherwise, no.
Part of the reason for super hero McGrath's success is down to the current LBW law as compared to the old one. In the old days his constant trundling outside the off stump would have seen batsman get outside the line and shoulder arms safe in the knowledge that they couldn't be out. Under this rule they're forced to play at the ball. You could argue that pad play is negative batting, but the bowling of that line is also negative bowling.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Remind me again, what was the date when the law was changed from has-to-pitch-in-line to has-to-hit-in-line-if-playing-a-shot?
 

Top