The mother of all confusions: LBW

By Rajadhyax

Probably no other element in cricket has caused as much argument among cricketers and cricket lovers as the LBW decision. It has perhaps created more controversy and heart break than any other single decision made by an umpire. To add fuel to fire, there is also a lot of confusion associated with it. From heated arguments to rebellions, everything has happened in the wake of an LBW decision – a man having nearly lost his life in local cricket for raising the finger in an LBW appeal! This article seeks to dispel some of the confusions or demons associated with it.

The history is a little blurred here, but arguably the Leg Before Wicket (LBW) rule is supposed to have come into being in 1774. It has been modified and updated subsequently on a few occasions. Presently, Law 36 of the Laws of Cricket states that a batsman can be declared out LBW in particular circumstances and here it is in a nutshell: a bowler bowls a legal delivery (must not be a “no-ball”) that pitches anywhere, except outside the leg-stump. Such a ball makes no contact with the bat or the glove of the hand holding the bat and directly hits the batsman anywhere else (usually the leg). If such a ball is deemed to be hitting the stump, the umpire can give him out. However, if a stump hitting ball strikes the batsman outside the line of his off-stump and the umpire feels the batsman was making a genuine effort to hit the ball with his bat, the umpire will not give it out.

So let’s silence some of the misunderstandings. Firstly, even if the word “leg” is used in the term LBW, a batsman can be declared out if the ball hits anywhere on his body, except the bat or the gloves of the hand that holds the bat. Remember, Sachin Tendulkar was given LBW at Adelaide (1999-2000) when the ball hit his shoulder. Secondly, ball striking the batsman’s person outside the line of off-stump can be declared ‘not out’ only if the batsman was truly making an effort to hit the ball with the bat. Thirdly, if the ball hits the pads first and then hits the bat, the umpire can call it out LBW if it fits in the rest of the elements of Law 36. Fourthly, the most common misunderstanding is that one cannot be LBW playing on his front foot. NO! An umpire can declare a batsman LBW regardless of whether he was on his front or back foot and regardless of where the batsman stood at the time the ball hit him. It is just some umpires who feel that when batsmen play on the front foot, usually the ball is pitched up to them and its difficult to judge whether the ball would have hit the stump or not. That’s why you sometimes see a batsman declared not out playing on the front foot.

Another doubt to be cleared among readers is that a batsman cannot be declared out LBW if the ball is pitched outside the line of his leg stump (even if it was a stump hitting ball).

Whether the bowler was bowling over the wicket or round also does not matter. TV commentators sometimes cause confusion. When a commentator says he cannot be declared out because the bowler was bowling round the wicket, he means that it’s difficult to judge the line of the ball and usually when you bowl round the wicket, balls pitch outside the leg stump. So they are not talking of the law; they are merely stating that umpires find it difficult to make the judgement and as a matter of convenience may give batsmen not out. But there have been cases in international cricket where bowlers going round have got the decision in their favour.

Hopefully, this much is enough to end some of the arguments about the rule itself. Whether the umpire got it right or wrong will still continue to cause debates and there’s pretty little we can do about it. Sometimes the dividing line is so thin between a right and wrong decision. Unless, of course, umpires improve their calling and judgement, because then we can rid the game of some such controversies.