Lbw - Why?

[Devil Fish]

I know that if the ball pitches outside leg stump, you can't be given out LBW - but WHY is that rule in place? And WHY doesn't the same apply if the ball pitches outside off stump? It has always baffled me.

 

[SBI]

I believe, it is because of the fact that it is easier to angle the ball to the pads when it pitches outside leg stump.

 

[Devil Fish]

I believe, it is because of the fact that it is easier to angle the ball to the pads when it pitches outside leg stump.

Gee, now you've got me scratching both heads.

 

[Onip]

Geez DF I would never have guessed you were a Tasmanian.

 

[Zondor]

Geez DF I would never have guessed you were a Tasmanian.

I think that DF was referring to his other head in the nether regions.

 

[Bring It On Home]

Easy boys

THis is to complicated

 

[crudbucket]

It would also encourage negative bowling.
Quicks would all be bowling around the wicket all day, just stick 2 fielders behind square, one just in front of square and two others in the on-drive area and you would be bored shyteless wery quickly with about 150 runs max being scored in a day ....

 

[crownie]

theres more angle as well if you bowl around the wicket.

 

[Cooldude]

Then Warnie will bowl around the wicket from ball 1 and get all 10 via lbws

 

[eddiesmith]

Maybe they felt also because batsman can have a bit of a blind spot outside leg, it would be unfair to the batsman

 

[Ricketts]

It would also encourage negative bowling.
Quicks would all be bowling around the wicket all day, just stick 2 fielders behind square, one just in front of square and two others in the on-drive area and you would be bored shyteless wery quickly with about 150 runs max being scored in a day ....

this is true.

 

[TigerMike]

I know that if the ball pitches outside leg stump, you can't be given out LBW - but WHY is that rule in place? And WHY doesn't the same apply if the ball pitches outside off stump? It has always baffled me.

the playing arc is off side. The bad comes through the off, you can give a full bladed flat bat defensive stroke to the ball.

You have to change the arc when the ball is on the pads, and you cant use a full blade if you play through a stroke. The bat will be angled.

It is a far different defensive proposition.

 

[Partridge]

I've got another more cynical reason. The game has always been governed by batsmen. Before they improved the LBW law it had to pitch in front and hit, a lot tougher than now. Consider the following moments in cricket history and spot what's in common:

1. Bodyline 1932-33 - Completely legal tactic against an incredibly powerful Australian line up on good wickets. But you'd think the English bowlers were committing murder. How dare they come up with a successful tactic.

2. Back foot draggers 1950s - Australia has some very quick bowlers dragging the back foot forward and terrifying a few batsmen. As a result we got the horrendous front foot no ball rule.

3. West Indies 1980s - Every other country (especially this one) cried and moaned for years about how the rules needed to be changed, anyone can bowl 6 bouncers an over (which was rubbish), etc. etc. Fact was they had great bowlers and won accordingly.

4. Pakistan early 1990s - Akram and Waqar Younis destroy a few teams by brilliant swing bowling. What does everyone cry - cheats!!!

The fact is cricket is administered to be a fair game when batsmen destroy subservient bowlers. The rules still reflect this.

 

[crudbucket]

I've got another more cynical reason. The game has always been governed by batsmen. Before they improved the LBW law it had to pitch in front and hit, a lot tougher than now. And players like Colin Cowdrey would just pad away anything that pitched outside the line. Now that caused some very boring cricket. Consider the following moments in cricket history and spot what's in common:

1. Bodyline 1932-33 - Completely legal tactic against an incredibly powerful Australian line up on good wickets. But you'd think the English bowlers were committing murder. How dare they come up with a successful tactic.In the days before helmets, they actually came very close to committing murder. The ball was deliberately aimed at the batsman's body and nothing else. Bert Oldfield was hospitalised with a fractured skull. The ball hit the very thing it was aimed at in that situation.
2. Back foot draggers 1950s - Australia has some very quick bowlers dragging the back foot forward and terrifying a few batsmen. As a result we got the horrendous front foot no ball rule. Bowlers were over running the crease by so far due to this rule that some express bowlers like Gordon Rorke would sometimes be releasing the ball more than a foot over the line. The law that a cricket pitch was to be 22 yards long was established for a very good reason.
3. West Indies 1980s - Every other country (especially this one) cried and moaned for years about how the rules needed to be changed, anyone can bowl 6 bouncers an over (which was rubbish), etc. etc. Fact was they had great bowlers and won accordingly. This one I can't argue with. An era for fast bowling that we'll probably never see again.

4. Pakistan early 1990s - Akram and Waqar Younis destroy a few teams by brilliant swing bowling. What does everyone cry - cheats!!! So those Pakistani bowlers who got caught scraping the ball with bottle tops were just misunderstood choirboys?
The fact is cricket is administered to be a fair game when batsmen destroy subservient bowlers. The rules still reflect this.

Yes, cricket is steeped in favour of the batsman but it needs to be this way. I wouldn't like a game where we regularly considered "all out for 200" to be a good effort, how long would test matches last on average ? 3 days ?

 

[Devil Fish]

It would also encourage negative bowling.
Quicks would all be bowling around the wicket all day, just stick 2 fielders behind square, one just in front of square and two others in the on-drive area and you would be bored shyteless wery quickly with about 150 runs max being scored in a day ....

Probably the best explanation thus far. Thanks crudbucket.