LBW

[Leothebear]

I am puzzled by the rule that states a batsman can't be out LBW to a ball pitched outside the line of the wicket. Why?

In today's test Robinson got an LBW with a shortish ball a good 9 inches outside that line. What's going on?

[Howyoudoin]

I am puzzled by the rule that states a batsman can't be out LBW to a ball pitched outside the line of the wicket. Why?

In today's test Robinson got an LBW with a shortish ball a good 9 inches outside that line. What's going on?

Yes, this rule confuses me too.

If you can’t be out LBW in this way, why is one that hits the wicket allowed (example: Warne’s ball of the century)?

HYD

[Newroad]

Evening All.

There are various factors, predominantly

1. Where did the ball pitch?
2. Where did the ball impact?
3. Would it have gone on to hit the wicket (with its trajectory at point of impact)

You are asking about (1) above. If the ball pitches outside leg stump, you cannot be out LBW. The genesis of the current version of this law is to minimise/prevent various kinds of "leg theory", regarded as negative cricket, being effective. The proscription of more than two fielders behind square on the leg side is related to this.

The batsman is afforded similar protection to balls pitching outside off stump - as long as they are playing a genuine stroke (as judged by the umpire). In effect, if the batsman is simply padding up (this time the batsman, rather than the bowler, playing negative cricket) they lose this protection. The protection is weaker to balls outside the off-stump as the batman typically has many options around a wide arc of the field to such bowling.

Regards, Newroad

PS Gatting wasn't good enough (or perhaps perversely, was too good) with the ball you refer to - had he got to the pitch of it, he could have used his pad to smother it. However, it drifted (left to right as viewed by the bowler), then critically dipped, then spun (right to left) - and was overall too much for him. A poorer batsmen may not have moved to account for the drift and ended up partly or wholly in line still as the ball spun, saving the day.

[Howyoudoin]

Evening All.

There are various factors, predominantly

1. Where did the ball pitch?
2. Where did the ball impact?
3. Would it have gone on to hit the wicket (with its trajectory at point of impact)

You are asking about (1) above. If the ball pitches outside leg stump, you cannot be out LBW. The genesis of the current version of this law is to minimise/prevent various kinds of "leg theory", regarded as negative cricket, being effective. The proscription of more than two fielders behind square on the leg side is related to this.

The batsman is afforded similar protection to balls pitching outside off stump - as long as they are playing a genuine stroke (as judged by the umpire). In effect, if the batsman is simply padding up (this time the batsman, rather than the bowler, playing negative cricket) they lose this protection. The protection is weaker to balls outside the off-stump as the batman typically has many options around a wide arc of the field to such bowling.

Regards, Newroad

PS Gatting wasn't good enough (or perhaps perversely, was too good) with the ball you refer to - had he got to the pitch of it, he could have used his pad to smother it. However, it drifted (left to right as viewed by the bowler), then critically dipped, then spun (right to left) - and was overall too much for him. A poorer batsmen may not have moved to account for the drift and ended up partly or wholly in line still as the ball spun, saving the day.

Many thanks for that comprehensive and very insightful post, Newroad.

HYD

[Leothebear]

Thanks seconded.
The Robinson LBW I quoted - the batsman didn't offer a stroke IIRC.

Not sure it's a rule I'm too fond off. Too generous to batsman. (I was a bowler).

[didds]

Thanks seconded.
The Robinson LBW I quoted - the batsman didn't offer a stroke IIRC.

Not sure it's a rule I'm too fond off. Too generous to batsman. (I was a bowler).

there was a time when the outside off stump law was the same as the pitch outside leg law.

The May and Cowdrey had a stand of over 400 against spin twins Ramadhin and valentine (WI) by padding up to anything that pitched outside off, and the law was changed to combat such negative play.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles ... test-27386