• 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.

Why does impact matter in an LBW decision?

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
What does it matter if it’s hitting a player outside the line but going on to the stumps?
 

Line and Length

International Captain
I tend to agree when it hits outside off. However, when it's hitting outside leg, paying lbw would result in very negative bowling (around the wicket, pitching outside leg waith a 3/6 legside field).
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Yeh I understand the leg side rule, but why the off? That was more my question
 

srbhkshk

International Captain
I think it's about the spirit of the lbw rule, which is essentially designed so that a batsman can't just cover his stumps with his body and stop using his bat to basically never get out - when you get hit outside the line you aren't really doing that so you aren't out.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Yeh I understand the leg side rule, but why the off? That was more my question
Coz playing a shot is often gonna mean you can get beaten. The idea is to allow batsmen to go for shots as long as they are not just standing there covering their stumps to not get bowled. We played cricket when were 8-12 year olds when there were no LBWs and it was friggin annoying bowling to some guys who will just stand there in front of the stumps and not move their feet at all and throw their hands at the ball, knowing they will never get bowled. I believe the hit outside off rule was brought in to ensure a) batsmen were free to move their feet towards playing strokes and b) they cannot still just plant their feet in front of the stumps knowing they cant be out.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Coz playing a shot is often gonna mean you can get beaten. The idea is to allow batsmen to go for shots as long as they are not just standing there covering their stumps to not get bowled. We played cricket when were 8-12 year olds when there were no LBWs and it was friggin annoying bowling to some guys who will just stand there in front of the stumps and not move their feet at all and throw their hands at the ball, knowing they will never get bowled. I believe the hit outside off rule was brought in to ensure a) batsmen were free to move their feet towards playing strokes and b) they cannot still just plant their feet in front of the stumps knowing they cant be out.
Makes sense. Cheers
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I tend to agree when it hits outside off. However, when it's hitting outside leg, paying lbw would result in very negative bowling (around the wicket, pitching outside leg waith a 3/6 legside field).
hitting outside the line of leg or not is irrelevant. It's impossible to hit outside the line of leg, and be hitting the stumps without already pitching outside leg which precludes it from being out lbw.
 

Top