The Outsider Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 It was Warne's second wicket today, forgot the batsman's name. He was leg before trying to reverse sweep a ball pitched outside leg stump and was given out. Technically, it was not out and if the umpire was aware of it, he would not have raised his finger. But I thought it was a fair decision and perhaps a small footnote is warranted in the LBW law to allow these kind of dismissals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atul Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 but that time commentator said, since player was trying reverse sweep it is fine to give him lbw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapioca Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 >> But I thought it was a fair decision and perhaps a small footnote is warranted in the LBW law to allow these kind of dismissals? For wides, only the original stance of the batsman is considered. ie, just because the batsman turned around while the ball is being bowled, an outside the off ball does not become an outside the leg wide. Maybe the same should continue to hold for lbws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 but that time commentator said' date=' since player was trying reverse sweep it is fine to give him lbw?[/quote'] Yes, the commentator said it was fine and it appeared to be fine as well, but if you apply the law to the letter it was not out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 >> But I thought it was a fair decision and perhaps a small footnote is warranted in the LBW law to allow these kind of dismissals? For wides, only the original stance of the batsman is considered. ie, just because the batsman turned around while the ball is being bowled, an outside the off ball does not become an outside the leg wide. Maybe the same should continue to hold for lbws. But, there are also instances when the batsman backs away to the leg and the ball passes between him and the leg stump it is not given as a wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapioca Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Apologies. I was completely wrong there. I think the original stance is considered for lbws, but not for wides (and I mixed up the two). So I have nothing to add to your original post except say again that umpire was probably wrong as per the current interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 good change to make to the LBW law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludhianvi Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Good point, I also noticed this as well. I find cricket rules are so vague. Like " spirit of the game" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts