Re: Batsman's Stance And LBW Decisions

Ron Knight wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:23:21 +1000, "David White" <no@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

1. Why the distinction between offering a shot and not offering a
shot when the batsman is hit outisde off stump, i.e., why can't he
be out even if he's playing a shot? I don't know the reasoning
behind this restriction.

I didn't write the Laws, mind you, so I can't read the minds of the
Lawgivers. I can tell you that the Law you question had this form
only after the adoption of the 1980 Code of the Laws of Cricket.
Before that, you had to be hit between the wickets to be out LBW. So
the Law as it stands doesn't represent a restriction of the principle
that you should be out LBW if you block a ball that would have hit the
stumps. It instead represents an expansion of the principle that you
have to be hit between the stumps to be out LBW. So I personally
speculate that the question was never really considered very seriously
in the way that you ask it.

The change in the 1980 Code arose from players padding away balls
outside the off-stump with impunity under the old Law, not even
attempting to play the ball with the bat. They knew that as long as
they kicked the ball away while it was still outside the line of the
off-stump, there was no way that they could correctly be given out
LBW.

Personally, I would disagree with an earlier poster in this thread
that dismissal LBW is in some sense a dismissal Bowled. This implies
that LBW is always given when the striker would have been bowled,

That was me, and I don't agree. The reason the LBW law existed in the first place was
surely to pronounce a batsman "technically bowled". Having a variety of criteria other
than that the ball would have hit the stumps doesn't mean that "technically bowled" isn't
its primary purpose. The law-makers might have added a restriction such as that the
batsman must be hit in line simply because they considered it too difficult for the umpire
to judge whether the ball would have hit the stumps otherwise.

except that he interposed his body. This does overlook the exception
that has been standard: that a striker is given a space in which he is
allowed to stand, and if the ball hits him there, on the leg side of
the stumps, he cannot be given out LBW even if the ball was going
towards the stumps.

I thought that the main reason for this was to prevent negative bowling and field
placings. If a spinner could get an LBW outside leg stump, he'd pack the leg-side field
and bowl outside leg all the time, and there'd be little that the batsman could do to
score runs.

There have been those that have questioned even
this concession to the batsmen, but they have never gained the upper
hand with the Lawgivers.

The basic principle behind LBW to me is not that it is another form of
being bowled (in the sense that being stumped truly is just a special
way of being run out). It is that the batsman is expected to guard
his wicket with his bat and not his body. When his primary line of
defense is his legs and not his bat, a basic principle of fair play
has been violated, and the LBW Law is a response to that violation.

Then why does the ball have to be judged to have been heading towards the stumps? Simply
getting hit in the leg in line should be enough.

When the striker is standing in a normal guard and receiving a ball in
line with his stumps, he is expected to be able to get his bat in the
way of the ball or suffer the consequences. If his primary line of
defense is his bat, the ball should hit his bat.

When he is attempting to play a ball outside the line of the off
stump, however, and therefore has to move from his guard to the line
of the ball, the chances are increased that he is not going to contact
the ball with his bat, and that the ball will hit his pads instead.
This may occur even if the batsman's primary line of defense is his
bat. Of course it may occur in front of the wicket as well, but the
chances of missing it with his bat outside the off stump are
increased, even if he is making a legitimate attempt to play the ball
with his bat.

I speak with no authority, mind you, and I'm just speculating. But
bearing in mind that the qualification you question was an expansion
and not a restriction when the Law was reformulated, it seems natural
to me that the Lawgivers could have thought that it was expanding the
Law too far to give a striker out LBW outside the off stump when he
was truly trying to guard his wicket with his bat.

Okay, let me put it this way. Why was it restricted in the first place? If it was to avoid
umpires having to make difficult trajectory judgements, then that reason has been thrown
out of the window by the expansion, so completing the expansion (on the off side) is
logical.


2. My recollection of the LBW law is that if you hit the batsman on
the full, the umpire may assume that the ball would have continued
straight on had it been allowed to bounce. Clearly, the ball would
sometimes not continue straight on (e.g., a big, tossed-up Warne leg
break). This seems to me to contradict the purpose of the law. You
could have the asbsurd situation where you have to get out of the
way of the ball, which will not hit the stumps, to avoid being out
LBW.

And how many times have you seen anybody do that?

None. It's hypothetical. A thought experiment.

A batsman will not
jump out of the way of the ball, knowing that it will turn away from
the stumps, because he'll never know that. The umpire doesn't know it
either. Even if Shane Warne is bowling his mightiest spin, that
particular delivery might be his straight ball or his wrong one. Since
the ball never pitches we will never know.

Exactly, so not out.

This change happened only with the 2000 Code, and it does not apply
only to the striker's being hit on the full. The ball might possibly
pitch short and be coming down again when it hits the striker, so that
it can reasonably be expected to pitch again before reaching the line
of the stumps. In this case as well the umpires are instructed not to
take into consideration any possible turn off the pitch that might
have occurred past the striker, had the ball not hit the striker
first.

Before the adoption of the 2000 Code there was a complete disconnect
between the strict requirements of the Law, as urged by the
Association of Cricket Umpires and Scorers for one, and the practice
in the first-class game. This disconnect was most pronounced in the
matter of boot hits at the crease.

Yes, I can see that that would have been a problem. The batsman has been beaten by a
spinner's yorker and hit on the boot and shouldn't be able to get away with it.

The wording of the Law, the principle of giving the benefit of the
doubt to the batsman, and the urging of the ACU&S was that when the
striker is hit full toss on the boot at the crease, considering the
roughness that usually develops where the strikers are pounding their
bats on the pitch and taking guard, you can never give an LBW because
you can never know what the ball would have done after pitching. In
practice in first-class cricket, these were routinely given out if in
front of the stumps and there wasn't too much swing observed, and they
never received much objection from the batsmen. Perhaps first-class
batsmen believe they shouldn't let themselves be hit like that, and
deserve what happens if they do.

The interpretation of the Law by the ACU&S was certainly soundly
based, given that the batsman is supposed to get the benefit of the
doubt, and also that you never do know what the ball is going to do
after it pitches. However, the practice in the first-class game
certainly had some sense to it as well, given that most of the time a
boot hit in front of the stumps is not going to take such a wild cut
off the pitch that it will miss the stumps. The possibility that it
might take such a wild cut, though real, is too speculative to raise a
serious objection to the dismissal.

Right. My question was more concerned with being hit on the full farther down the pitch,
perhaps far enough that there is actually quite a low probability that the ball would have
hit the stumps. The problem is that if you try to distinguish between the two you are
again back to the murkiness of judging the worst-case movement of the ball once it
pitches.

So the Lawgivers considered this disconnect. They could insist on the
existing wording and interpretation of the Laws, which recognizes that
the umpires have no idea what the ball will do off the pitch (even if
Shane Warne is bowling tremendous spin, that particular delivery might
have been his arm ball), and says that therefore there can never be an
LBW on such a delivery. Or they could formalize the reasoning behind
the first-class practice, which also recognizes that the umpires have
no idea what the ball will do off the pitch, but then makes a
deliberate decision to ignore that fact because most of the time it
doesn't make a difference.

In the end, they went with the establishment of an objective standard.
The line of the ball after pitching is assumed to be the same as the
line before hitting the pads. This does not ignore any swing that may
have occurred before hitting the pads, but it does not attempt any
correction of the ball's speculated action after pitching. (I can't
see how Hawkeye could do that either.)

This does result in an exception to the general principle that the
batsman gets the benefit of the doubt in a dismissal. But that is why
we write Laws, to specify when general principles are to be followed
and when they are to be varied. It is not a violation of fairness for
the Laws to lay down an objective principle that holds in all cases
and replaces a subjective speculation on the part of the umpire. The
development of the Laws over the years has always been in the
direction of giving the umpires guidance that is as objective and
clearcut as possible, rather than leaving matters up to their own
opinions on what is fair or unfair. To meet that goal on this matter
there really was no other choice but to amend the Law as it was done.
The alternatives are either to always give the striker Not out when
the ball would have pitched between his pads and the wicket, or to
have the umpires guessing as to how much the ball would have turned
off the pitch. Of the three alternatives I am personally satisfied
that the one adopted by the Lawgivers results in a decision conforming
more to the spirit of the LBW Law than decisions based on one of the
two alternatives would.

Well, all things considered, I guess it's a reasonable compromise, even if it's
unsatisfactory in some ways. At least it's clear and batsmen know what will get them out.

Again I speak with no authority. Just giving my opinion.

Thanks for your detailed response.

Take it easy,
Ron Knight

David


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Batsmans Stance And LBW Decisions
    ... I can tell you that the Law you question had this form ... you had to be hit between the wickets to be out LBW. ... have to be hit between the stumps to be out LBW. ... attempting to play the ball with the bat. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Mike Holmans has been disappointing
    ... Dougie, after the ball was rolling, to advance down the wicket, lift ... the ball with his left toe, and hit the ball out of the ground. ... The 1980 Code Hitting the Ball Law ... No runs except those which result from an overthrow or penalty, ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Sachins Helmet before wicket by Hair
    ... > ball hit the ducking Tendulkar on his shoulder in line with the stumps. ... and Adelaide umpire Daryl Harper raised his ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: The dreaded straight drive strikes again!
    ... I'd have thought giving a batsman out bowled when the ball didn't hit the ... stumps goes some way to redressing the balance. ... The real 'Bruce Edgar incident' occurred four or five years ago when he upped sticks and moved his family to Australia. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Umpiring question: second impact of ball
    ... second hit off the bat ... ... Law 32.1, the fielder would needed to have caught the ball before it ... hit the ground to get the batsman out. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)