I am against changing rules which have stood the test of time for centuries. But the following rule has frustrated me for decades.
Let me speak out today even though I may be labelled as a cricket ignoramus.
A batsman is judged not out for LBW if the ball is pitched on the leg side even though the tracking device shows that the ball would have hit the stumps.
To me this is wrong. It favours the batsman and is anti-leg-spinners.
I have asked many friends who know their cricket but have received vague and unconvincing answers.
A few months ago I met The Roar editor Scott Pryde at a first-grade cricket match at the Roseville Oval in Sydney.
He was the umpire in that match and before the game commenced we had a chat discussing various aspects of cricket laws.
Scott’s explanation was interesting. He said that if batsmen were given out LBW to stumps-hitting balls pitching on the leg stump, teams would be all out for poor scores and matches would not last the distance.
I agree that spectators at internationals come to watch centuries and not low scores but isn’t this unfair to bowlers, especially leg-spinners and googly bowlers?
We all remember Shane Warne clean-bowling England’s Mike Gatting with a delivery that pitched outside his legs and hit his off stump in the Manchester Test of June 1993.
Now wait. If the ball had touched Gatting’s pad on the way to hitting the stumps, he would have been declared not out by the current rules.
(Photo by Rui Vieira/EMPICS via Getty Images)
Is that fair? Perhaps it is ‘fair’ for batsmen but unfair for leg-spinners and for the good of the game.
The above is just one striking example. But there are more than a thousand cases when batsmen have received lives because of this illogical leg-side no-LBW law.
About time we change this law.
Roarers, what do you say?
TI
Guest
Similarly for a left-arm seamer going over the stumps to a right handed batsman: most of their straight deliveries will pitch outside leg stump, but go on to hit the stumps.
Phil
Guest
I remember those long boring periods of play in which Shane Warne bowled around the wicket to slow the scoring rate down. If we changed the LBW law that's all we'd be seeing. It is almost impossible for the batsman to score in these circumstances.
Punx Pete
Guest
Good man, Kersi. After digesting all the comments, do you still think the LBW is illogical? I venture there has been a great deal of logic offered in this thread.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Expert
DaveJ and Punx, I agree with you. What I had meant was if Warne delivery had hit the pad Gatting would have been given not out. I had explained this in a comment made on Monday. My original sentence in that article was wrong, I own up.
Punx Pete
Guest
DaveJ is right. "Now wait. If the ball had touched Gatting’s pad on the way to hitting the stumps, he would have been declared not out by the current rules." Kersi, that is an absolute howler. If your stumps are disturbed, you're out, no matter whether the ball pitched off or leg or whether it brushed the pad. I think you'd even be out if the ball didn't pitch on the cut area!(?) I think you meant to say if it deflected off his pad and *missed* the stumps, yes? Either way, I can't see your point? What made it the 'ball of the century' is that it magically pierced Gatting's defensive prod after pitching outside leg. If it had been an LBW, under your new rules, it would have been a ho-hum dismissal, IMHO. Seriously, someone who is suggesting a seismic rule change ought to have an understanding of the basics.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Rubbish. As for “If the ball had touched Gatting’s pad on the way to hitting the stumps, he would have been declared not out by the current rules.” - I have to give you some earthshaking news - if the ball hits the stumps, it doesn’t matter whether it hits your pads on the way!
AREH
Roar Guru
Some of the domestic umpiring in this season just concluding has been a bit laughable
Peter Warrington
Guest
We have lived experience of negative bowling. England’s dry line to smith with a 7-2 field. So I think this risk should be taken into consideration. But it should not override some of the other issues and benefits.
Punx Pete
Guest
LB's not given on balls pitching outside leg is there for a very good reason: to make cricket a more attractive game. Changing the rule would make the game look ungainly.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Expert
Jimbob, what about a batsman moving his pad toward the off-side and the ball hitting it just after it pitches. Isn't he given out if the umpire thinks it would have hit the stump?
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
It would have a bigger impact on left handed batsman, because the majority of bowlers are right handed. All of a sudden they have to play at balls bouncing outside leg stump. Saying it would favour leg spinners, not really because you still have to hit the pad in line, a leg spinner going around the wicket well they are going to be hitting the pad outside the line anyway. its going to need a lot of turn to get the ball to come back from outside the leg stump over the wicket.
Peter Warrington
Guest
83 from memory and went to stumps on 87 after worsening Kapil's pain by slashing the next ball for 4. this was a time when he was maybe in danger of being dropped. I rode every ball with him. it was a terrible decision but a great knock, especially the driving off Yadav and Doshi the next day (and one of Kapil where he plays the shot I want to see on my deathbed, a charge and a cover drive, with a Slazy - tracer bullet. Didn't see a drive as good until Haddin's first test ton.)
Peter Warrington
Guest
Still not sure. Plenty of good sweepers abound. The fast yorker that hoops in fast to clip the heel on the way to the outside of leg... that would be hard to counter, Wasim Akram would have taken a million wickets with this rule. Maybe we should trial it in ODIs where the bowlers clearly need a bit of help?
Kersi Meher-Homji
Expert
I see your point, Chris. Anyway, a good clean debate.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
As a former right handed opener I always thought left arm quicks should have been locked in a cage and beaten with sticks till they learned how to bowl right handed. But that's just me I guess :)
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
In that case that would have been bad luck for Warnie. Wouldn't have mattered though. He would have cleaned him up next ball with a flipper ;)
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Although, while I haven't seen him in ages, so my memory might be a little shakey, even with Chanderpaul's extreme stance, I'm pretty sure his movements then resulted in him being in a semi-normal position as the ball was delivered.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yes, things can get pretty hostile at times. I remember one time when I had the whole fielding team swearing at me and calling me a cheat and such for not giving a batsman out caught behind when there was at least 5cm of daylight between bat and ball. I liked to think that I would always give the same decision umpiring with my team mates batting than I would if I was a completely neutral umpire. And yes, I did once have to give my captain out LBW as the third wicket of a hatrick! Fortunately he was fine, he knew he was plumb.
Nick
Roar Guru
That's the same concern no matter where the ball pitches. They already have a process for that
Jimbob
Guest
Agree in principle. But the problem is, if the batsman moves his pad toward the leg side, and the ball hits it only just after it pitches, how can anyone (including DRS) have a clue if it was going to hit the stumps or not?