How fair is the LBW rule?

[Meet]

Until now, I was of a view LBW decisions were quite simple and only needed to be worked out whether the ball was going to hit the stumps irrespective of whether it was pitched in or out of the line. Only the bounce/swing/spin needs to be kept in mind for such decisions.

But today, just googled about to find out how such decisions are actually given, and I find out very strange rules.

First of all, there's no chance of batsman getting LBW if the ball pitches outside leg stump even if its trajectory would have hit the stumps. Why???? Why would you not give him out if it was going to hit the stumps by movement or the spin of the ball as the batsman had actually came in between as obstacle??? This rule is beyond me, so are the others.

Then, it states if the ball is pitched out of line of off stump and the batsman is attempting to play a shot, he can't be given out irrespective of whether it would have hit or not hit the stumps. However, if the batsman is not attempting to play a shot and is struck with similar delivery, he may be given out. I can't get this rule too, why can't you give a batsman out when he tries to play the ball????? The ball was going to hit the stumps, if he had not been there and the mere difference between former and later is that the batsman wasn't trying to play a shot. So even when he was trying to play a shot, he missed it,and it hit the pads and was going to hit the stumps, hence in no way , should be given not out!!!!

When ball pitches in line, the rule seems to be fair as it should.

Share your views on it.

 

[Lebanna]

In essence the LBW rule is there to discourage the batsman from just kicking the ball away from the stumps.

With that in mind to answer your questions:

When the ball pitches outside leg stump it is naturally harder for the batsman to make contact as the pads are between bat and ball. Therefore this part of the rule is to stop bowlers just pitching the ball well outside leg yet still aimed at the stumps giving the batsman little chance of hitting it and securing an (easy) wicket.

The ball pitching outside off-stump is actually irrelevant. If it pitches outside off it only needs to be hitting the stumps to be out. That said, if the ball hits the batsman outside the line of off-stump, then the rule about not playing a shot comes in.

That rule is to do with preventing the batsman from padding the ball away. If the batsman is playing a shot but just missed the ball, then he is still giving a potential for other methods of dismissal with his attempted shot (caught). Trying to hit the ball carries a risk. If the batsman isn't trying to hit the ball then he can't be out caught or any other way except bowled (presuming he staying in the crease of course) so by kicking the ball away the batsman could never be out. Therefore the LBW rule is implemented to prevent this behaviour.

I hope that clears up some of your questions, and isn't to confusing. People often equate the LBW rule in cricket to that of the offside rule in football - both are confusing but there to prevent giving either side an unfair advantage.

 

[Meet]

When the ball pitches outside leg stump it is naturally harder for the batsman to make contact as the pads are between bat and ball. Therefore this part of the rule is to stop bowlers just pitching the ball well outside leg yet still aimed at the stumps giving the batsman little chance of hitting it and securing an (easy) wicket.

Quite understandable.

The ball pitching outside off-stump is actually irrelevant. If it pitches outside off it only needs to be hitting the stumps to be out. That said, if the ball hits the batsman outside the line of off-stump, then the rule about not playing a shot comes in.

I actually misinterpreted this one with the ball hitting pads and the ball pitching outside the line of off stump. Now that I have got it, seems quite right too. I have rarely seen batsmen getting out in this manner anyways.

Just to bring in different matter related to LBW's.
The umpires are always under pressure regarding LBW appeals. It is also quite obvious it will be very difficult for umpires to make a judgement in hardly few seconds. Given today's technology, the umpires should be actually allowed to view the replays, if not allowed to follow the complete DRS system. This way, many wrong decisions could be saved and the reputation of umpire won't be damaged too.

 

[Lebanna]

There are a few cases of batsman getting out when not playing a shot, although its mostly against spinners.

What you say about umpires is a whole different kettle of fish. There are massive debates about this in very high level circles of cricket!

 

[hawkeye]

cricket matches would be much shorter if you could get LBW to balls pitching outside leg.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Here's a question : how would the game be different if throwing was legal?

 

[ferg512]

Here's a question : how would the game be different if throwing was legal?

It pretty much is legal isn't it?

 

[angryangy]

The modern lbw law is the result of a number of amendments to promote off theory cricket. It encourages bowlers to bowl outside off stump and encourages batsmen to play good bowling with their bat, not their pads. The result is not only the chance of lbw, but a chance of slips and keeper catches, as well as more entertaining drives than would be the case if the bowlers were bowling at leg stump.

 

[War]

The modern lbw law is the result of a number of amendments to promote off theory cricket. It encourages bowlers to bowl outside off stump and encourages batsmen to play good bowling with their bat, not their pads. The result is not only the chance of lbw, but a chance of slips and keeper catches, as well as more entertaining drives than would be the case if the bowlers were bowling at leg stump.

Ye good summary, the old LBW certainly prevented spinners from getting batsmen out lbw if they padding up, to balls pitching outside the line of off-stump - but was turning into their legs (leg theory)

The most famous example of this was the 1957, Birmingham test between ENG & WI.

During that record partnership between May & Cowdrey - i read they both repeated just kicked away ball just outside the off-stump, from Ramadhin & Valentine. Under the modern LBW rules, they probably wouldn't have made 50s.

 

[Owzat]

The law kinda works, does prevent batsmen just kicking the ball away or "padding up".

The one way I would argue it might not be "fair" is that a batsman can be not out LBW for playing a shot outside off stump, why give them a safety net if they are beaten and the ball would have hit the stumps?

I could surmise it is like the law for outside leg stump, to prevent deliveries from unfair angles, but even if a left-armer went around the wicket and pitched it from wide, how is that much different to the advantage they'd gain anyway? (like Malinga side arm action that I think is unfair)

On which note I turn to the comment/query about "throwing". For me it should be based on unfair advantage gained by action as much as legitimacy of action. I think Malinga gets a lot of wicket because of the angle of delivery, especially bowling round the wicket.

But then again bowlers who "soften up" a batsman, or tailender, with lots of deliveries at their head, chest, body etc, is that "fair"? Most will probably say "it's part of the game" but so is diving in football but it doesn't make it right or "fair"......... Used to be plan B for windies when they were still a force in the late 80s, and indeed the aussies in 1993 when, if they couldn't get someone to roll over like Caddick, they'd pepper him with short stuff until he popped up a catch. No different to me than bodyline or indeed bowling outside leg stump to stifle runs and try to get a wicket.

Fair enough if someone has a hook at a short ball and "holes out", but aiming at them so it's a case of "you miss, we hit (you)" then there are, or were, supposedly laws against intimidatory bowling. It isn't natural to try fending the ball off your ribs, it is awful to watch and if anything should be a no ball I reckon that should be (where aimed AT the batsman with decreased chance of getting out of the way), as opposed to knocking the bails off which was farcical to call a no ball - dead ball fair enough.

Oh and is it "fair" that Australia scored 570/9d while England score less than 500 runs in three innings............?

 

[angryangy]

Intimidatory bowling is a complex case. It's necessary to have the law, because in a game where everyone has to be a batsman regardless of how good they are at it, inevitably there will be someone somewhere whose batting ability is dramatically outclassed by the opposition's bowling. However, players these days wear far more protection than ever before and at the top level, even the Monty Panesars of the world are rigorously trained to defend themselves. That said, the Australians were warned not to bowl more than 1 bouncer an over at Monty. So it's a law that must be judged in the context of the judiciary.

It's also important to note that since time immemorial, fast bowlers have worked in a policy of mutually assured destruction. You can bounce a fellow quick, of course, but you may get more than you bargained for in return. And that's no bad element of the game.

 

[Lebanna]

It's also important to note that since time immemorial, fast bowlers have worked in a policy of mutually assured destruction. You can bounce a fellow quick, of course, but you may get more than you bargained for in return. And that's no bad element of the game.

Agreed, although in the current Ashes series, a bouncer from the English is not quite as scary as a bouncer from Johnson, the scoreline being evidence of that..