View Full Version : the RULE of LBW
MegEagle
4 Jan 2003, 18:37
ok i luv cricket but ive never truly understood the rule of leg before wicket.
Where does the ball have to pitch for it to be out, and where does it have to hit them on the leg/pads? Any other explanation would be appreciated!!!
Originally posted by MegEagle
ok i luv cricket but ive never truly understood the rule of leg before wicket.
Where does the ball have to pitch for it to be out, and where does it have to hit them on the leg/pads? Any other explanation would be appreciated!!!
In all cases, in the umpire's opinion, the ball has to be ruled to have gone on and hit the stumps, providing the ball hit the pad directly (first point of impact). A batman "should" never be given out if the ball pitches outside leg stump. When a ball hits the batman, it is to be assumed that the ball will take the same line as it did immediately before hitting the pad (body, etc.).
Playing a Shot:
1. Ball has to pitch in line with the stumps or outside off stump.
2. Ball has to hit the pads in front of the stumps.
Not Playing a Shot:
1. The ball does not have to hit the batman in front of the stumps.
Maybe Mr Tiffen has to do some revision too...
Bob
El Scorcho
4 Jan 2003, 19:02
OK, here goes.........
1) The ball can NOT have pitched (landed on the wicket after being bowled) outside the line of leg stump, nor can it hit the pads outside leg stump (this is sort of ruled out anyway because for the ball to be going on to the wickets after hitting the pad outside leg stump, it must have pitched outside leg stump or be defying the laws of physics.....)
2)The ball MUST be, in the umpire's view, going on to hit the stumps. This then affects which part of the pads the ball can hit and still be given out. Basically, if the ball hits above the knee it will probably be given not out because it will go over the top and so on.....
3)IF the batsman is playing a shot the ball can NOT hit him outside the line of the off stump
4)IF the batsmen is NOT playing a shot then the ball can hit him outside the line of the off stump and be given out - you may have seen Shane Warne take the wickets of left handers this way.
I think that's pretty much it although this rule has changed over time and will probably continue to do so. As a bowler I don't think it's fair to remove the entire leg side pitch for LBW's but that's the way it goes I guess....
bobbity2
5 Jan 2003, 13:40
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob_vic
[B]In all cases, in the umpire's opinion, the ball has to be ruled to have gone on and hit the stumps
:rolleyes: ...unless you're Michael Vaughan.
Fansquad
5 Jan 2003, 15:27
Originally posted by MegEagle
ok i luv cricket but ive never truly understood the rule of leg before wicket.
Well as it would appear either does the two umpires in this test.
It is very simple, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and the ball hits the players body before it hits his bat then it is out LBW, unless:
1. The ball pitches outside the line of leg stump or;
2. The ball pitches outside the line of off stump and the batsmen offers a shot at it.
Basically the only time a player can be given out LBW if the ball doesn't pitch in line with the stumps is if the ball pitches outside the off stump and the batsmen doesn't offer a shot.
Originally posted by Zombie
It is very simple, if the ball is going to hit the stumps and the ball hits the players body before it hits his bat then it is out LBW, unless:
1. The ball pitches outside the line of leg stump or;
2. The ball pitches outside the line of off stump and the batsmen offers a shot at it.
Basically the only time a player can be given out LBW if the ball doesn't pitch in line with the stumps is if the ball pitches outside the off stump and the batsmen doesn't offer a shot.
No, it can pitch outside off stump as long as it hits the batsman in line with the stumps and will go on and hit the stumps. Doesn't matter if the batsman offers a shot or not in this case.
Originally posted by Bob_vic
A batman "should" never be given out if the ball pitches outside leg stump.
Maybe Mr Tiffen has to do some revision too...
Bob
There's a reason why I put "should" in inverted commas! LOL
Bob
watching today, i could have sworn the LBW law stated that a batsman shall be given out if the ball strikes the pads, and the bowler appeals hard enough.
larrikin
5 Jan 2003, 18:09
Originally posted by nicko18
watching today, i could have sworn the LBW law stated that a batsman shall be given out if the ball strikes the pads, and the bowler appeals hard enough.
Unless you're name's Stuart MacGill, he absolutely begged for one against Harmison.