Day After Day After New Year Test: Australia v India @ Sydney (Tue-Sat)

[mike14]

**** Ian Healy isn't excruciating. Bloke has absolutely no idea

He does have a point though. Why is it that it can be the tiniest fraction for pitching in line, but must be half the ball at the stumps? Seems odd.

For the record, Cowen looked out to me from the naked eye so I have no problem with the decision. Just seems like a strange rule

 

[Carbine Chaos]

From what I saw Cowans DID hit in line with off stump. Shouldn't matter if its half a ball, quarter of a ball, if ANY part of the ball hits in line, then it should be out.

This it was out; every day of the week.

Cowan's fault, nobody else's.

 

[Tassieboy]

Healy can complain all he wants about where the ball pitched but it was crashing into middle and off

Whether it's hitting the stumps is irrelevant, though. I always thought half the ball had to strike the batsmen inline for it to be lbw?

 

[outabounds]

Does the ball have to pitch in line for an LBW? I thought it just had to be going to hit the stumps.

No it has to hit you in front and then be going on to hit the stumps- the ball cannot pitch outside leg however.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Does the ball have to pitch in line for an LBW? I thought it just had to be going to hit the stumps.

If the batsman is playing a shot, the ball has to hit him in line with the stumps and be going on to hit them.

If he isn't offering a shot, the ball can hit him outside the line of the stumps and still be given out if it is going on to hit the stumps.

Under no circumstance can it be given out if the ball pitches outside leg stump.

 

[Scootyb]

Drs is simple, if the umpire calls it out then only conclusive evidense of it being not out will nullify the decision ie a whole ball pitching outside leg, hitting outside the line or missing the stumps

 

[aussie1st]

Does the ball have to pitch in line for an LBW? I thought it just had to be going to hit the stumps.

I thought it was where the impact was for that case. Only when a right armer is over the wicket against a leftie should where the ball pitch come into it. Well that's how I understand it.

 

[BluesMan]

Does the ball have to pitch in line for an LBW? I thought it just had to be going to hit the stumps.

It cannot pitch outside leg, but can pitch outside Off, and pitch in line

In then MUST hit in-line, however much that is, and going by the reviews CH 9 have shown, it can be miniscule amount.

 

[Lemma]

So if it was slightly more toward leg, so that it wasn't (ie. no fraction of the ball was) inline with the stumps, it wouldn't be out? That's not much of a difference between out and not out...
Edit: oh wait it was pitched outside off- never mind....*facepalm*

 

[FlyingBurittoBro]

**** Ian Healy isn't excruciating. Bloke has absolutely no idea

 

[Doctor Feel]

Clarke can't stand still.

 

[JonoNash]

Is David Warner just a newer and more stylish version of Phil Hughes?

 

[whats_at_stake]

Drs is simple, if the umpire calls it out then only conclusive evidense of it being not out will nullify the decision ie a whole ball pitching outside leg, hitting outside the line or missing the stumps

Exactly, people do not understand the concept of umpire's call.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Still 17 overs or 64 minutes of play left in the day. Australia could be five down by stumps if Ponting and Clarke aren't careful.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

That's not much of a difference between out and not out...

That's kind of the point...point of the whole game of cricket, really...

Ball hits the stumps = Out. Ball misses the stumps by a mm = Not Out.

Fielder catches the ball on the full = Out. Ball drops short of a diving fielder by a mm = Not Out.

 

[Spitta09]

Whether it's hitting the stumps is irrelevant, though. I always thought half the ball had to strike the batsmen inline for it to be lbw?

Didn't it strike him inline when it hit his pad anyway? I dunno what channel 9 were playing at they were putting more emphasis on where the ball bounced/pitched than where it actually struck him in the first place.

 

[BluesMan]

So if it was slightly more toward leg, so that it wasn't (ie. no fraction of the ball was) inline with the stumps, it wouldn't be out? That's not much of a difference between out and not out...
Edit: oh wait it was pitched outside off- never mind....*facepalm*

If that ball doesnt strick Cowan's pads in line, however the amount, it is not to be given out.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

It's like the top three spots are cursed or something. I mean, the middle order is hardly covering itself with glory, but at present opening and first drop are cursed.

Maybe Kat did it...

 

[damochandler]

It has to be conclusive to be over turned. It wasn't it's out. Ian Healy should read the rule book

 

[frankrizzo]

He does have a point though. Why is it that it can be the tiniest fraction for pitching in line, but must be half the ball at the stumps? Seems odd.

Must be at least half of the stumps to overturn a not out lbw, if an ump has given it out it could be hitting 1/100 of the legstump and it would stay as umpire call.

It's an easy concept, the benefit of the doubt goes to whatever decision the on field umpire made.

Please don't listen to healy when it comes to drs, anything tougher than fingerpainting makes his head hurt.

 

[Lemma]

@Bluesman
Ohk I got ya now. I was getting confused between the point it pitches and the point it impacts the pad.

 

[Furn]

MCC’s interpretation was that, for pitching outside leg stump, the centre of the ball should be used as the reference point but, for considering whether the ball hits the batsman in line with the stumps, any part of it is used.
The explanation of the difference is that, for pitching in line, physics and common sense dictate that the centre of the ball - that is, the circumference point beneath its centre of gravity - must be the point of impact with the pitch. The point of impact with the batsman is more complicated, however. The centre of the ball - in this case the foremost point of it - does not necessarily make contact with the batsman. The edge of the ball could graze the pad but its centre stay outside the line of the pad. But the edge of the ball is sufficient to break the wicket. So, MCC decided that, if any part of the ball is in line with the stumps, it satisfies the
criterion of hitting in line.

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/ask-the-laws-department/

 

[dan warna]

Is David Warner just a newer and more stylish version of Phil Hughes?

cough cough.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Generally a good rule of thumb is to ignore anything Healy says.

 

[Tassieboy]

Clarke is just too loose.