Two things about LBW that I will never understand

[Lone Wolf]

Batsmen have blind spots.. a bowler can get away with bowling lots of deliveries beyond his line of sight and would get him out.

[BacktoCricaddict]

8 hours ago, IndianRenegade said:

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. 

I guess, with technology, I am just a stickler. In my mind, intent should not matter. Is the ball going to hit the stumps, per technology? If yes, and no bat involved, give it out. 

[putrevus]

10 hours 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 

lol . Doosra  as lot of others have pointed cannot be bowled legally.

 

Saqlain was never tested strictly either.

 

Fast bowlers can also chuck to gain pace .Charlie Griffith who broke  Nari Contractor’s head by chucking, even his captain Frank Worrell was sure he chucked.

[BacktoCricaddict]

9 hours ago, Lord said:

 

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

Saqlain probably should've been called for chucking too,

 

Here's my thought process:

 

Chucking is illegal. The only way to bowl a doosra is to chuck. So, the spinner gets a doosra advantage which he wouldn't have if he didn't chuck (like fast bowler gets additional speed). Hence it shouldn't be allowed.

 

Regardless, I don't think anyone should be banned for chucking. Leg umpire calls a no-ball if he notices chucking on a particular delivery. Rest will take care of itself. 

 

[putrevus]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Saqlain probably should've been called for chucking too,

 

Here's my thought process:

 

Chucking is illegal. The only way to bowl a doosra is to chuck. So, the spinner gets a doosra advantage which he wouldn't have if he didn't chuck (like fast bowler gets additional speed). Hence it shouldn't be allowed.

 

Regardless, I don't think anyone should be banned for chucking. Leg umpire calls a no-ball if he notices chucking on a particular delivery. Rest will take care of itself. 

 

Aussie umpires did just that but SL created an international incident. Murali was chucker who should have never allowed to bowl doosra.

[Lord]

5 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Saqlain probably should've been called for chucking too,

 

Here's my thought process:

 

Chucking is illegal. The only way to bowl a doosra is to chuck. So, the spinner gets a doosra advantage which he wouldn't have if he didn't chuck (like fast bowler gets additional speed). Hence it shouldn't be allowed.

 

Regardless, I don't think anyone should be banned for chucking. Leg umpire calls a no-ball if he notices chucking on a particular delivery. Rest will take care of itself. 

 

Why is it illegal though? What is the reason behind the law? 

[Lord]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

lol . Doosra  as lot of others have pointed cannot be bowled legally.

 

Saqlain was never tested strictly either.

 

Fast bowlers can also chuck to gain pace .Charlie Griffith who broke  Nari Contractor’s head by chucking, even his captain Frank Worrell was sure he chucked.

That is just saying doosra/chucking is illegal because it's against the law. 

 

I'm questioning the logic of the law

[BacktoCricaddict]

5 minutes ago, Lord said:

Why is it illegal though? What is the reason behind the law? 

Centuries ago, there were 2 factions - one that wanted elbow bend and other that did not. They fought and fought and finally decided, let's just go our separate ways and create 2 sports. That's how baseball became the chucking sport, and cricket became the non-chucking one. And we lived happily ever after.

[putrevus]

41 minutes ago, Lord said:

That is just saying doosra/chucking is illegal because it's against the law. 

 

I'm questioning the logic of the law

Logic is it is impossible for a normal human being without straightening their elbow to turn the ball other way with offspin grip.When you do that it means you are using forearm to throw the ball rather than shoulder to bowl the ball.I hope I made it clear.

[Lord]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Logic is it is impossible for a normal human being without straightening their elbow to turn the ball other way with offspin grip.When you do that it means you are using forearm to throw the ball rather than shoulder to bowl the ball.I hope I made it clear.

Why is using forearm so wrong? 

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, Lord said:

Why is using forearm so wrong? 

because it is throwing not bowling.

[Lord]

18 minutes ago, putrevus said:

because it is throwing not bowling.

So straightening the arm suddenly makes the delivery unplayable for batsman even it's at same slow speed 

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

So straightening the arm suddenly makes the delivery unplayable for batsman even it's at same slow speed 

Are you talking about Prasidh Krishna?

[putrevus]

6 minutes ago, Lord said:

So straightening the arm suddenly makes the delivery unplayable for batsman even it's at same slow speed 

Yes try throwing the ball using your forearm and doing the same with shoulder you will understand the difference.

 

It becomes baseball than cricket.

[tapandrun]

The lbw rule was introduce so that the batter do not fend off the balls with their legs and make them use the bat to bring in edges and catches.

Pads give larger coverage than a bat would do to cover the stumps, so use bat when the ball is directed at the stumps. So it was to discourage batter from using legs.

 

So everything related to Lbw was not see a batter out but to make them play. So even with new tech. the rules are rule on how would a umpire judge a batter is lbw or not and hence the line matters 

 

1) Tracking is still a predictive algo and after the impact there all the trajectory and direction is predictive , saw a video few years back which implied that there is some human in the loop thing as well in decision making. Batter is aware of his off-side (This is where a batters looking when taking the stance) so they must play balls that are coming from the off0stump line and then on leg-side is as some suggested the blind stop for the batter its hard to judge, plus when these rules came along there were not many leg-spinners or LAF bowlers who were bring the ball back in. 

 

2) Its the same thing make the batters use the bat/play the ball rather than using legs to fend off

 

 

[MK55]

1: The leg side rule and the blind spot rationale needs to be investigated. The bowler is bowling from 22 yards away. Plus he needs to make sure that his leg doesn’t touch the outside crease while bowling. Even if he releases wide of the crease there’s only so much angle he can create. Presently this is just to protect the batsmen and the reluctance to change the core rules.

 

2: Absolutely this rule is rubbish. If the ball is hitting the stumps, even if the impact is outside, it should be out - regardless of whether the batsman is “offering” a shot or not. 
 

Overall - It’s the reluctance to deviate from the ancient rules of the game. Plus if u change these -> more wickets -> less runs -> less “entertainment”

 

Personally I’m somewhat ok with the leg side rule but the second one should be got rid off. 

Edited July 24, 2025 by MK55

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, MK55 said:

1: The leg side rule and the blind spot rationale needs to be investigated. The bowler is bowling from 22 yards away. Plus he needs to make sure that his leg doesn’t touch the outside crease while bowling. Even if he releases wide of the crease there’s only so much angle he can create. Presently this is just to protect the batsmen and the reluctance to change the core rules.

 

2: Absolutely this rule is rubbish. If the ball is hitting the stumps, even if the impact is outside, it should be out - regardless of whether the batsman is “offering” a shot or not. 
 

Overall - It’s the reluctance to deviate from the ancient rules of the game. Plus if u change these -> more wickets -> less runs -> less “entertainment”

 

Personally I’m somewhat ok with the leg side rule but the second one should be got rid off. 

The rationale is you have to be hitting on the pads in front of the wickets to be given lbw and for that impact should not be outside off stump. Runout nahi hai, lbw hai.

[MK55]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

The rationale is you have to be hitting on the pads in front of the wickets to be given lbw and for that impact should not be outside off stump. Runout nahi hai, lbw hai.

I know what a LBW is. I’m saying that this requirement of the ball to not pitch outside leg and the justification of that because of blind spots needs is up for discussion. 

[lemsip]

The blind spot is a real thing. The issue is what would happen if the rule did not exist - bowlers would mainly dart the ball in from outside leg exploiting the blind spot  aiming straight for the pads and the game would be reduced as a spectacle and would tilt far more in favour of bowlers.

It is a bit like why you have an offside rule in football. The way to think about it is what would happen to the game if the rule did not exist.