Cricket...

[Spicerack]

Something I ought to know but don't.
Why does the ball have to pitch in line with the stumps for LBW sometimes
and sometimes not.
If that's right.

[Mozz71]

I agree. I know its the rules of the game, but shouldn't it just be "was it hitting the wicket?"

[vetuste_ennemi]

If the batsman who chose to stop the ball with his pads rather than his bat had not there, then would the ball have hit the stumps, is, I think the law.

[THECORBYLOON]

They can be out if not attempting to hit the ball.

The Batsman is out
"If the batsman is struck on the pad in front of the stumps and the ball has not pitched outside leg stump (ie the ball has pitched in line with the stumps, or outside the line of off stump).

If the batsman is struck on the pad outside the line of off stump having not made an attempt to hit the ball.

This is an important part of the lbw law to remember as a batsman CAN be given out playing no stroke - even if they are struck outside the line of the off stump - as long as the ball is going on to hit the stumps."

[jim360]

It only has to not pitch outside leg. I suppose the logic is that bowling at the batsman's legs from that side is harder for the batsman to legitimately defend and play at, because they would have to move across quite some distance. So to discourage this pitching outside leg removes LBW as a way of losing the wicket.

[Spicerack]

I think it's something to do with which side of the wicket the bowler bowls from and/or left/right handed batsmen. But I'm just guessing.

[10ClarionSt]

I would have thought that too, Mozz. Maybe the "in line" thing is a left over from pre TMO days. But with the technology now, ball tracking shows whether it would have hit the wicket, so why does it matter if it's pitched in line or not? If it's going to hit, you're out mate!

[Spicerack]

So leg side is the side the batsman's legs are, so to speak.
And off? side, the side he holds the bat on?

[Buenchico]

Clicking through the slides here should explain everything:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/6125026.stm

[Arksided]

They should introduce VAR, that'll make cricket interesting ;-)

[Spicerack]

Thanks all.

[Buenchico]

>>> They should introduce VAR, that'll make cricket interesting.

Where have you been for the past decade, Arksided? DRS has been in use in cricket far longer than VAR has been in football:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpire_Decision_Review_System

[Arksided]

Behave Chris... seriously did you not spot my winking smilie.


Nob

[Buenchico]

I'll assume that 'nob' stands for 'not out batsman', Arksided ;-)

[Arksided]

assumption is mother of... one forgets my friend

As for the past decade... well saving the planet ain't easy :-)

[THECORBYLOON]

The LBW law was changed in the 1930s so that a batsman could be out if the ball pitched off side but hit him in line with the wicket.

That meant that batsmen could just pad the ball away as long as it was not in line, wicket to wicket, when it hit the pad.

The law was changed again in the 1970s so that even if the ball pitched off side and hit the batsman outwith the line of the wicket, he could be out, playing no stroke, as long as the ball would have hit the wicket.

[saintpeter48]

So one team goes in and one team stays out, when the team that are in are out, the team that were out go in, then if a batsman is not out he stays in ........ what could be simpler!

[New Judge]

//I know its the rules of the game...//

Cricket has laws, not rules.

[aelmpvw]

it would be a lot simpler if they banned pads

[New Judge]

//it would be a lot simpler if they banned pads//

You've obviously never played cricket.