LBW Laws

[TC Ink]

I want to get everybody's take on this rule:

Law 36 (Leg before wicket)

The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.

... (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

Last night in South Africa vs England, Dale Steyn got Strauss out LBW (Righty to Lefty). The ball pitched outside the line of leg then hit absolutely plumb in front of middle, there was no doubt the ball would have hit the stumps. Rightly so (In my opinion) the umpire gave it out, but the commentators (especially Beefy Botham) and people on another forum were up in arms that it shouldn't have been out because it pitched outside the line of leg.

To me this seems rediculous, as I said, there was no doubt at all it would have hit the stumps, it was plumb. The rule to me is bleak and does not at all factor in the handedness of bowler and batter. According to the rule if Steyn pitches it outside off, he can still get an LBW, but imagine what the ball would have to do to come back and hit in line?? Surely a ball that pitches on leg has a higher chance of hitting the stumps than a ball that pitches on off (in the case of righty to lefty anyway).

Thoughts people?

[nickmclachlan]

simple, if it pitches outside leg its not out,

its to discourage negative bowling

[TC Ink]

Jul 13, 2008 14:56:53 GMT 10 nickmclachlan said:

simple, if it pitches outside leg its not out

Gee thanks scoop.
I understand the rule -_-

Jul 13, 2008 14:56:53 GMT 10 nickmclachlan said:

its to discourage negative bowling

But are we a bit past this? I think it is quite unfair. I'm looking for a more detailed valid explanation as to why this rule still exists...

[Sammy]

What happens when Pieterson goes left handed?

[TC Ink]

Good question, I presume that the legside is whatever it was when he began facing.

Although it does pose another point that maybe the rule is a bit out dated...

[supercoach]

i think they should abandon the lbw leg side rule for 20/20. bring the balance back towards the bowler.

[::Richo::]

I agree with nick.

[nickmclachlan]

the rules have been in place for 100 years plus,
they don't need to be changed.

[TC Ink]

Fair enough.

It was just that one incident that got me thinking about the rule I mean it was so, so plumb.

[nickmclachlan]

but it wasnt,

think about it, right arm bowlers would go round the wicket and angle the ball at the back of the batsmans legs all the time if the law was introduced, left handers would fail against offies, the same with right handers against leggies

[::Richo::]

Yea and Nick and I have to deal with that all the time being left hand bowlers, bowling majorly to right handed batsmen.

[Sammy]

Jul 21, 2008 19:15:12 GMT 10 nickmclachlan said:

but it wasnt,

think about it, right arm bowlers would go round the wicket and angle the ball at the back of the batsmans legs all the time if the law was introduced, left handers would fail against offies, the same with right handers against leggies

Getting clipped off the legs for six over and over again...
I have to see I'm inclined to agree with Tom, if it's going to hit the stumps, it should be out LBW.

[::Richo::]

But the thing is like Nick has said these rules have been in place for ages and they've worked, I believe that if this rule was to change their would be a greater increase in negative bowling. These rules work and should not be changed.

[Sammy]

Define 'work'
Could easily get into a philosophical discussion here.
How do we know something is working when we have nothing to compare it against?
It could be infinitely better another way.
Read 1984

But anyway, considering this a cricket rule, perhaps that's to in depth.
But the basic logic holds, just because it is working, doesn't mean there can't be a better solution.

And I'd tend to say it's not neccessarily working. An LBW is a wicket for leg before wicket, in the example that Tom gave, his leg was clearly before the wicket, hit plumb in front, yet the laws of the game dictate that this is not out.