Change the LBW rule
February 12, 2008
The LBW rule is the most complex rule in cricket (and perhaps, in all of sport). And necessarily so, because it seems to me that it has been refined meticulously over the years to ensure that the right balance is maintained between bat and ball. It’s really quite a remarkable rule when you think about it. I would give the MCC/ICC a generous pat on the back for getting most aspects of the rule right and thereby successfully maintaining that delicate balance.
However, keeping the spirit and ethos of the rule in mind, I suggest two changes:
- If the batsman gets an inside edge onto the pad and the ball is going on to hit the stumps, let it be out. I can’t understand why you would want to give the batsman not out here. If you inside-edge the ball onto the stumps, you are bowled, aren’t you? Then why make the distinction for leg-before?
- If the batsman is attempting to play the ball and the ball hits the pad first but would also have been intercepted by the bat had the pad not been in the way, then don’t give the batsman out. The rationale is along the same lines as for the previous point.
Apart from making the LBW rule more sensible, these changes have great potential to help reduce umpiring errors. A large fraction of wrong LBW’s are because of the umpire missing an inside edge and declaring the batsman out. Perhaps many valid LBW appeals are turned down because the umpire is not sure if there was a faint nick of the bat or not. Also, those pad-first-bat-second situations are really very difficult to judge. And I don’t see much sense in giving the batsman out in such cases anyway as he is making a real attempt to play the ball and would have hit it had the ball not hit the pad first.
Of course, the danger with any major rule change is, to paraphrase Wisden, “the creation of a dividing line between two histories of the game”.
P.S. I can see left-arm swing bowlers bristling with indignation at the second suggestion.
February 12, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Hey, great suggestions. Is anyone listening?
February 13, 2008 at 1:14 am
Thanks. Glad that at least someone listened.
February 13, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Excellent point!
February 14, 2008 at 12:39 am
Ah but you have simply postscripted a central contention that would undercut your second point! Left arm swing bowlers (and right arm banana outswing bowlers in the Kapil mould) would suffer greatly. Simply attempting to play the ball should not excuse a batsman for having been beaten. Which brings me to a related question I have been wanting to raise for a while: what is the rationale for not-outing an outside the line of off impact even if the batsman is making a play at the ball? The bowler has beaten the batsman and if the ball is going on to hit the stumps, shouldn’t it be out? (The reasons for not extending this theory to the legside are obvious).
To think through these questions, it wouldn’t hurt to become versed in the history of the game. I could only find this shoddy and confusing piece online. But from what I can gather, the law seems to have progressed from necessitating both the ball pitching and impacting the batsman in line with the stumps to providing the offside exception much later. As with the most important cricket issues of the last century, Bodyline seems to have played a central role.
I am a little dubious of your first point as well: thick inside edges would pose great difficulties for the umpire in adjudicating whether the ball might have gone on to hit the stumps. The batsman will get the benefit of the doubt in most cases; can this be thought to be palatable by considering it equivalent to say a batsman getting well forward thereby creating enough doubt to get the benefit?
Update: This seems to confirm the approximate progression of the law I just described.
February 14, 2008 at 5:24 pm
With the stakes becoming higher every year, it’s a matter of time before LBW decisions are referred to the 3rd ump.
February 15, 2008 at 10:27 am
Nice way of expressing things.
–Anish
http://coversports.blogspot.com
February 15, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Umm…leg before wicket…ok i accept its a valid idea…but arent we changing the game too much already to make such a big change…
February 16, 2008 at 8:43 am
Great blog. Interesting suggestions. How about helping the umpires out with the front foot no ball rule?
February 16, 2008 at 9:51 am
the way things are going i wonder where are they going to get the umpires to even stand for games leave alone implementing new rules?
February 16, 2008 at 11:27 pm
SVA, Anish, TSS, SP and John: Thanks for your comments. Great to hear some feedback on the suggestions.
Srivaths: I think the rationale for not-outing a batsman if the impact is outside the line of off has a lot to do with correct technique and human limits. The correct way to bat is to get your pad inside the line and get your bat in line with the ball. Now, if you think of a fast bowler bowling an exaggerated off-cutter, it’s very difficult to first go forward and across to get your bat in line with the ball and then pull back to account for the off-cut. So the rationale is that you shouldn’t punish the batsman for doing everything he could to play the ball (the fact that he ultimately missed it is because he is human and not that he played incorrectly). Essentially, it’s about maintaining the balance. This is also part of the reason that I’m suggesting the second rule change.
About the first point, accepted that thick inside edges would be difficult to judge. But there umpires would be encouraged to give the batsman not out because of the doubt (which is totally fine – usually a thick inside edge means that the ball is deviated too much to hit the stumps and also the batsman wasn’t completely beaten). The advantage would be that faint edges would not cause problems. Also there would be more consistency with the bowled situation.
Overall, the lbw rule is a brilliantly crafted one.
I guess brevity goes out of the window again.
February 16, 2008 at 11:34 pm
About the front-foot no-ball rule, that is material for a separate debate. There are two sides to the story and I’m not entirely with Ian Chappell when he rants about it. If it’s causing such a big problem with the umpiring, have a separate official standing near mid-on who would act as a linesman. Wouldn’t that be a better solution?
February 13, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I’ve always thought the LBW law was a crock of shite. Inside edges should not save you. Agreed. It is too hard to see anyway. Being hit outside off shouldn’t save you either.
A final point. We always hear that the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Why? It’s not in the rules. If you don’t believe me, go read them.
At the very least, the rules should specifically say a batsman hit not playing a shot has the benefit of doubt against him (balls not pitched outside leg).
March 2, 2009 at 6:08 am
Great suggestions Thanks at least someone is there.