A question regarding LBW

[shyam1234]

Hi guyz, I was having a doubt. My brother and I were having an argument about the interpretation of the lbw rule in a certain scenario. A batsman who had stepped out of the crease (ala Gambhir) gets hit on the pads on the full. He is hit in line of the stumps and below the knee roll, i.e. the line of the ball is not in question. However the umpire has doubts, whether the ball after it pitches might bounce over the stumps. What is the right decision for lbw. In short, in a lbw if hit on full, should the bounce after it pitches be taken into consideration while giving the decision? Can anyone clarify it. Thanks in advance. Shyam

[Holysmoke]

if a player is standing soooooooo far out ahead that the ball will hit him on the full, but would have gone and bounced over the stump if he wasnt there, then the line of the ball can never be sure. Also, for that the batsman has to be almost 4-5 yards down the track for which the ump will never be certain about anything. But in an ideal scenario the bounce should be taken into consideration i think

[punjabi_khota]

yes.

[DomainK]

Hi guyz, I was having a doubt. My brother and I were having an argument about the interpretation of the lbw rule in a certain scenario. A batsman who had stepped out of the crease (ala Gambhir) gets hit on the pads on the full. He is hit in line of the stumps and below the knee roll, i.e. the line of the ball is not in question. However the umpire has doubts, whether the ball after it pitches might bounce over the stumps. What is the right decision for lbw. In short, in a lbw if hit on full, should the bounce after it pitches be taken into consideration while giving the decision? Can anyone clarify it. Thanks in advance. Shyam

The only relevant part is the part I have highlighted. The umpire has to be 100% sure that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. If he is 99.99% sure, he will give it not out. Any benefot of doubt whether its regarding swing, bounce, spin, pace....whatever...will go to the batsman and the batsman only. Height is always a consideration whether the batsman is in the crease or down the wicket. If the umpire thinks that there was a possibility of the ball going over the stumps he will rule it not out.

[shyam1234]

so it means the decisions for lbw in perth and say srilanka would be different, even though everything(ball, batsman, bowler, trajectory of ball etc.) except the ground is the same?

[DomainK]

so it means the decisions for lbw in perth and say srilanka would be different' date=' even though everything except the ground is the same?[/quote'] The umpires in all cases would say that they had no doubts when they made the judgments. But yes, if the pitch has low bounce, chances of LBW go up.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Right answer would be, the umpire,picks up his walkie-talkie and consults with the third umpire about the height of the ball, who then checks the TV replays and uses Hawk-eye to predict the height of the ball when it hits the stumps and says so to the field umpire, who then gives the correct decision. Ofcourse, ICC has something against right answers.

[shyam1234]

The only relevant part is the part I have highlighted. The umpire has to be 100% sure that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. If he is 99.99% sure, he will give it not out. Any benefot of doubt whether its regarding swing, bounce, spin, pace....whatever...will go to the batsman and the batsman only. Height is always a consideration whether the batsman is in the crease or down the wicket. If the umpire thinks that there was a possibility of the ball going over the stumps he will rule it not out.

Domain, The relevant part is umpire is sure about line, only not sure about bounce, thus the doubt about the rule. Height is a consideration. but here it is the height after the bounce(which never happened) is in doubt. @all, it could be only a hypothetical scenario. I have no problem with that. Thank you.

[The Outsider]

If a ball hits a batsman on the full the umpire is to assume it would have carried on in that line and not take into account any lateral movement or height issue which might have resulted after pitching.

[DomainK]

Domain, The relevant part is umpire is sure about line, only not sure about bounce, thus the doubt about the rule. Height is a consideration. but here it is the height after the bounce is in doubt. @all, it could be only a hypothetical scenario. I have no problem with that. Thank you.

If there is doubt in the mind of the umpire that the ball was bouncing too much, the decision goes in favor of the batsman even if the batsman was down the ground and the ball was hitting him pretty low. If the umpire thinks the ball might have gone over the stumps, the batsman wins. BTW when a batsman is a good distance down the pitch, LBW is almost impossible to get.

[DomainK]

If a ball hits a batsman on the full the umpire is to assume it would have carried on in that line and not take into account any lateral movement or height issue which might have resulted after pitching.

Good point.

[shyam1234]

Punter, so you are saying that the moment he is a batsman is hit in line of stumps full toss, he is out. because the lbw rule says the batsman, the batsman should be hit in line, but the height at which it hits is not relevant, (i.e. even if the ball hits the batsman above stumps, he can be given lbw.)

[shyam1234]

Punter, can you explain it in simpler terms.

[DomainK]

Punter, so you are saying that the moment he is a batsman is hit in line of stumps full toss, he is out. because the lbw rule says the batsman, the batsman should be hit in line, but the height at which it hits is not relevant, (i.e. even if the ball hits the batsman above stumps, he can be given lbw.)

If a batsman is hit on the full, the umpire would assume that the ball would have continued the same line after bouncing. And if continuing the same line, the umpire believes, would definitely have hit the stumps, he would give it out.

[shyam1234]

If a batsman is hit on the full' date=' the umpire would assume that the ball would have continued the same line after bouncing. And if continuing the same line, the umpire believes, [b']would definitely have hit the stumps, he would give it out.

isnt it the question I was asking? The ball was going to bounce over the stumps, not hit the stumps. Now what does the rule say?

[DomainK]

isnt it the question I was asking? The ball was going to bounce over the stumps' date=' not hit the stumps. Now what does the rule say?[/quote'] Isnt that what I have been saying? Its not out.

[shyam1234]

Isnt that what I have been saying? Its not out.

I thought you agreed with Punter and I read him as saying out (which was why I asked for clarification). Sorry for the inconvenience.

[DomainK]

I thought you agreed with Punter and I read him as saying out (which was why I asked for clarification). Sorry for the inconvenience.

Punter was making a different point. If the ball hits on the full, its a different case altogether. If the ball hits the batsman on the full, umpires usually do not consider height after that.

[umpire]

what ball hits on full, the rule is umpire have to think that ball will just follow the same trajectory, there won't be any bounce, there won't be any turn, there won't be any seam. Just draw a straight line in the direction of the ball.

[diegovegaz]

what ball hits on full' date=' the rule is umpire have to think that ball will just follow the same trajectory, there won't be any bounce, there won't be any turn, there won't be any seam. Just draw a straight line in the direction of the ball.[/quote'] straight from the umpire