Two things about LBW that I will never understand

[BacktoCricaddict]

(1) How does it matter whether the ball pitched inline, outside off or outside leg? If tracking says it's going to hit the wicket, it should be out.

(2) How does it matter whether or not the batsman offered a shot? Hit pad first. Going to hit wicket. Out. Regardless of whether shot was offered or not. 

 

[putrevus]

8 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

(1) How does it matter whether the ball pitched inline, outside off or outside leg? If tracking says it's going to hit the wicket, it should be out.

(2) How does it matter whether or not the batsman offered a shot? Hit pad first. Going to hit wicket. Out. Regardless of whether shot was offered or not. 

 

1.If those rules were not there, batsmen will be out  most of the times they get hit on pads,

 

Leg spinners like Shane Warne would have had 1500 test wickets.

 

2. Not offering stroke takes impact within stumps out of the equation.

[bowl_out]

4 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

(1) How does it matter whether the ball pitched inline, outside off or outside leg? If tracking says it's going to hit the wicket, it should be out.

(2) How does it matter whether or not the batsman offered a shot? Hit pad first. Going to hit wicket. Out. Regardless of whether shot was offered or not. 

 

 

Let me take a shot at answering

 

1. It is to avoid negative bowling. The batsman doesn't have a bat on his leg side. Imagine a leg spinner bowling around the wickets to a RHB, taking advantage of the rough, and keeps bowling on the leg, batsman is bound to miss one of those and he'll be given LBW. So, in short, you can't fault a batsman for missing a ball that is bowled on the side where he doesn't have a bat.

 

2.  This is to prevent the batsman from blocking everything with his pads to protect his stumps. He is supposed to play the ball with the bat, and if he misses that is fine. But if he chooses not to attempt a shot, then he risks getting out for blocking the ball that was headed to the stumps deliberately with his body. You might also note that if a shot is not offered, the batsman can't run a leg bye. 

[goose]

pant going off is great! jädeja and him should swap

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

(1) How does it matter whether the ball pitched inline, outside off or outside leg? If tracking says it's going to hit the wicket, it should be out.

(2) How does it matter whether or not the batsman offered a shot? Hit pad first. Going to hit wicket. Out. Regardless of whether shot was offered or not. 

 

 

Without outside leg rule, bowlers will just keep hitting batsmen round the leg.

[Bigg Brother]

I don't understand batsman don't offering a shot. Why do you do that...

[velu]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

(1) How does it matter whether the ball pitched inline, outside off or outside leg? If tracking says it's going to hit the wicket, it should be out.

(2) How does it matter whether or not the batsman offered a shot? Hit pad first. Going to hit wicket. Out. Regardless of whether shot was offered or not. 

 

 

1) outside leg is sort of blind spot for the batsmen

2) ...

[Vickydev]

1 hour ago, bowl_out said:

 

Let me take a shot at answering

 

1. It is to avoid negative bowling. The batsman doesn't have a bat on his leg side. Imagine a leg spinner bowling around the wickets to a RHB, taking advantage of the rough, and keeps bowling on the leg, batsman is bound to miss one of those and he'll be given LBW. So, in short, you can't fault a batsman for missing a ball that is bowled on the side where he doesn't have a bat.

 

2.  This is to prevent the batsman from blocking everything with his pads to protect his stumps. He is supposed to play the ball with the bat, and if he misses that is fine. But if he chooses not to attempt a shot, then he risks getting out for blocking the ball that was headed to the stumps deliberately with his body. You might also note that if a shot is not offered, the batsman can't run a leg bye. 

Great explanation

 

But won't help @BacktoCricaddict ..as he said he will NEVER understand. 

[Lord]

Good thread. I too have such questions I am scared to ask 

[putrevus]

11 minutes ago, Lord said:

Good thread. I too have such questions I am scared to ask 

scared of what?

[BacktoCricaddict]

54 minutes ago, putrevus said:

scared of what?

Let me take a guess. Scared of looking ignorant in front of all these cricketing experts. 

 

Well ... at my stage of life, there's not much that can embarrass me :-)!! I am what I am. 

[IndianRenegade]

5 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

(1) How does it matter whether the ball pitched inline, outside off or outside leg? If tracking says it's going to hit the wicket, it should be out.

(2) How does it matter whether or not the batsman offered a shot? Hit pad first. Going to hit wicket. Out. Regardless of whether shot was offered or not. 

 

The way I view it is based on why thsi dismissal exists in the first place. As the name suggests it is intended to prevent the batter from using his leg or body to protect the wicket. 

 

1. outside leg is batter's blind spot & along with the fact his leg or body is the natural object for the ball to hit from that angle, unlike when the ball is in line the bowler needs to beat the bat to hit the pad.

 

2. since the rationale is to prevent the batter from playing using his body, if no shot is offered it potentially means the batter is sheilding his wkt with the body.  

[vvvslaxman]

Blind spot is the main reason.

[Lord]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

scared of what?

 

Asking a seemingly stupid question

 

Like I never understood why chucking is illegal for spinners? It does not give the bowler any extra advantage at that pace and batsman can easily play it and they do.

 

Now don't say its illegal because it against the law 

[BacktoCricaddict]

@bowl_out @IndianRenegade @vvvslaxman etc

 

To clarify, I totally agree that - if the ball is going to hit the stumps with "no shot offered" -  it should be out. But, it should be no different if the batter does offer a shot, but misses and gets hit on the pad. In other words, whether or not a shot is offered, if the ball hits pad first and is on track to hit the stumps, it should be out.

 

The leg stump thing, I am starting to understand the logic.

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Asking a seemingly stupid question

 

Like I never understood why chucking is illegal for spinners? It does not give the bowler any extra advantage at that pace and batsman can easily play it and they do.

 

Now don't say its illegal because it against the law 

 

Because you cannot bowl a doosra without chucking. So being able to bowl a doosra is predicated on chucking and that is extra advantage.

[Lord]

17 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Because you cannot bowl a doosra without chucking. So being able to bowl a doosra is predicated on chucking and that is extra advantage.

 

But why? Batsman should be able to play that. Also chucking is banned, not doosra. Saqlain was not banned 

[IndianRenegade]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

@bowl_out @IndianRenegade @vvvslaxman etc

 

To clarify, I totally agree that - if the ball is going to hit the stumps with "no shot offered" -  it should be out. But, it should be no different if the batter does offer a shot, but misses and gets hit on the pad. In other words, whether or not a shot is offered, if the ball hits pad first and is on track to hit the stumps, it should be out.

 

The leg stump thing, I am starting to understand the logic.

I guess it goes back to the same reason, "intent of preventing the ball from striking the wkt". if the the ball pitches in line with the stumps and you get hit in line with the stumps a batter probably knows that it could be striking the wkt. But if the impact is outside the line then the batter is less certain about it hitting the stumps, in which case he is only adjudged out if he didn't offer a shot, because the purpose of his body is to only block the ball in this case. 

 

While making the rule one could have justifiably chosen to rule getting hit out side the line out too as long as it hit the stumps, & but they chose not to. 

[StraightDrive26]

2 hours ago, Lord said:

 

But why? Batsman should be able to play that. Also chucking is banned, not doosra. Saqlain was not banned 

Saqlain was the only one who bowled the doosra without chucking. Everyone else who tried to bowl that delivery was called for chucking. So Doosra completely disappeared from cricket. Off-spinners moved on to Carrom Ball instead of Doosra. The last two bowlers to bowl doosra were Narine and Ajmal, both were called for chucking and they stopped bowling it anymore. 

[rkt.india]

10 hours ago, Bigg Brother said:

I don't understand batsman don't offering a shot. Why do you do that...

It's called leaving the ball and bad judgement.