LBW's

[twctopcat]

Just wondering why there is the rule that if the ball pitches outside of leg stump you cannot be adjudged to be out LBW. I don't like this rule because on the face of it you're leg is blocking the balls path to the stump, doesn't matter to me where it pitches. Is there any deeper meaning to it? If i was an umpire and it was a 50/50 decision if the ball pitched outside leg i'd give it out anyway, do a tiffin.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Just wondering why there is the rule that if the ball pitches outside of leg stump you cannot be adjudged to be out LBW. I don't like this rule because on the face of it you're leg is blocking the balls path to the stump, doesn't matter to me where it pitches. Is there any deeper meaning to it? If i was an umpire and it was a 50/50 decision if the ball pitched outside leg i'd give it out anyway, do a tiffin.

If that was allowed i dont think teams would make over 200 in an innings

I mean if you're gonna allow that to be given out LBW why not say that any ball that hits the leg and was gonna hit the wickets be given out...even if it hit the batmen outside the line? cos by the same reasoning it would have bowled the batter if not for hitting his / her pads.

I guess it was stopped cos bowlers would always bowl with negative lines on the leg stump knowing the batsmen would find it very hard to score and also they'd be able to get them out relatively easily if they missed the ball.

 

[Slow Love™]

I think it's related to blind spots for batsmen? Mainly to prevent a bowler perpetually putting the ball outside leg stump, in order that the batsman has little chance of scoring, while at the same time having a chance to dismiss the batsman using the tactic. Sure, this can also be done for a stumping attempt, but at least in those cases, as long as the batsman remains in his crease, he's safe. There's no such protection for LBW.

At least, this is what I've always assumed...

 

[tooextracool]

Just wondering why there is the rule that if the ball pitches outside of leg stump you cannot be adjudged to be out LBW. I don't like this rule because on the face of it you're leg is blocking the balls path to the stump, doesn't matter to me where it pitches. Is there any deeper meaning to it? If i was an umpire and it was a 50/50 decision if the ball pitched outside leg i'd give it out anyway, do a tiffin.

i cant imagine what a player like ashley giles would do if that were allowed.
"negative line" might just become "positive line"

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think it's related to blind spots for batsmen? Mainly to prevent a bowler perpetually putting the ball outside leg stump, in order that the batsman has little chance of scoring, while at the same time having a chance to dismiss the batsman using the tactic. Sure, this can also be done for a stumping attempt, but at least in those cases, as long as the batsman remains in his crease, he's safe. There's no such protection for LBW.

At least, this is what I've always assumed...

Yeah, that's my interpretation, too - dissuade negative bowling,

 

[Sudeep]

negative bowling

(cough) Giles vs. Tendulkar (cough)

 

[marc71178]

As well as make the game more even between Bat and Ball...

 

[tooextracool]

As well as make the game more even between Bat and Ball...

not really....it puts it completely in favour of ball

 

[twctopcat]

not really....it puts it completely in favour of ball

If they could be given out LBW if the ball pitched outside leg then itwould be completely in the favour of the ball.