It is not surprising that part-time cricket followers sometimes fail to understand the intricacies of the LBW Law, because in about twenty percent of cases commentators on radio and TV get it wrong when talking about the merits or otherwise of a decision. The summary of the LBW law as it stands today is:

It is important, however, to look at the historical development of the Law to gain a wider sense of the present legislation.

Until 1774 the batsman was allowed to kick the ball away from the wicket with impunity, except for a painful blow on the shin; but then the umpires were empowered to prevent batsmen 'standing unfair to strike'. By 1774, the batsman was out if 'he puts his leg before the wicket with a design to stop the ball from hitting the wicket'. An amendment was introduced in 1788 which stipulated that the ball had to be pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket and to be travelling to hit the stumps, but the 1774 clause concerning intention was omitted. An insignificant experiment was staged between 1929 and 1933, whereby a batsman could still be out LBW even if the ball hit the bat on the way to the pad, and it was not until 1937 that a major change took place in the 1788 ruling. After a two year experiment, it was decided that the law would include balls pitching outside the off stump providing the point of contact between ball and pad was between wicket and wicket.

This meant that if the ball pitched outside the off stump, the batsman had to be going back if the ball was to make impact between wicket and wicket and be going to hit the stumps. It still did not prevent the batsman going forward to anything pitching outside the off stump and simply kicking it away. That practice had become so prevalent by 1970 that an experimental rule was introduced whereby a batsman could be given out LBW, even if the point of impact was outside off stump, if he made no attempt to play the ball. It was accepted officially in 1972 and was embodied in the MCC's re-codified version of The Laws in 1980.

This demanded that the umpires had to be pretty sharp at judging the various angles involved. Was the ball seaming, or turning far enough to hit the stumps? Was it doing so much that it would miss leg-stump? Was it going over the stumps? All these questions had to be answered, as well as the intent clause which had reappeared for the first time since 1788. In essence, there had been three stages in producing the law as it stands today.

Because of the original, pre-1973 Law, if a bowler was to be effective he had to ensure that his delivery was travelling from wicket to wicket. The moment it came from any angle outside the off stump, the batsman could play back with impunity. If it was at all short, it had to be pitching outside off if it was to hit the stumps. It was a formal invitation to the batsman to pull because, even if the ball kept low, it could not be out.

So, who were the most successful bowlers? Of the quicker variety, those who went close to the stumps and who managed to shape the ball away from the right-hander. That would ensure they could prevent the ball from running down the leg side despite the fact that it had pitched on the stumps. If a natural in-swing bowler appeared, it would not be long before his coach or schoolmaster suggested that he was not destined for much success unless he changed his action and basic delivery.

Leg-spinners could obviously be reasonably successful, pitching leg-stump and hitting off. Left-arm spinners were also being told to run very close to the stumps, and arching their backs. This gave them a line which involved pitching on the wicket and just turning away a little bit, even when there was not much turn to be had, so as not to run down the leg side. Off break bowlers also tended to get in very close to the stumps, trying to achieve the same objectives and, by getting their front foot landing across the wicket, they could ensure their arm came over absolutely straight down the line. If there was a bit of turn, the off spinner would go around the wicket, again close to the stumps, so he could pitch on line and be hitting the stumps.

There have been other knock-on effects from the change in LBW Law in 1970. There was, for long period, the virtual disappearance of leg-slips and backward short-legs to the fast bowlers. In fact, one or two of these endangered species have been spotted again, but if the line of attack is a foot outside the off-stump there is not much call for them.

The other thing that has happened has been the development of the technique against slow bowling whereby the pad is thrust at the ball with the bat brought in behind the pad. In truth there is little actual intent to play the ball with the bat. However, it is used as a device to deter the umpire from giving a decision in favour of the bowler on the basis that the batsman was attempting to play a stroke but, unfortunately, the pad got in the way of the bat striking the ball. A lot of us have thought that the umpires have been a little timid, especially when such a play is repeated over after over. However, the Law as written insists that the ball would have been going to hit the stumps if it had not been intercepted. The interpretation has been established whereby the umpires judge that, if the ball had not struck the pad, it would still not have hit the wicket because the bat was in line to prevent it from doing so.

It might well be that this could be another useful change to the Law. The wording would need to be looked at closely, but something which got rid of the boring defence mechanism would be a good contribution. It would need only to change the umpires' attitude to increase more positive batting against the spinners. That, in turn, would encourage the slow bowlers. All cricket lovers appreciate the variety of the game so that it does not become the exclusive demon of fast bowlers. That is not as easy as it seem. It is obvious, for instance, that any tempering with the LBW Law has far-reaching implications, all of which could possibly be anticipated. Nevertheless, the time might come when an amendment will be in order to encourage the game to develop along the right lines.

[ Home ] [ What's Cricket? ] [ Origin Of Cricket ] [ Cricket Fashions ] [ One Day Cricket ] [ Jazz Of Cricket ] [ Mysteries Of LBW Law ] [ Javed Miandad-The Street Fighter ]

� All Rights Reserved
OnlyCricket.org