Should the ball hit the batsman on the full (i.e., without hitting the pitch), then the umpire is to assume that the ball would have continued on its previous trajectory, ignoring any possible deviation as a result of the ball pitching.

Goochy it would appear i was right on Tuesday at training.

Goochy wrote:

---

Beaver, you are an idiot.


Precise conditions for LBW

The conditions for a batsman to be given out LBW are:

1. The ball must be legal : The ball must not be a no ball.
2. The ball must not pitch on the leg side: The ball must either (a) pitch in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the wicket, or (b) not pitch at all before reaching the batsman. Therefore, any ball pitching on the leg side of the wicket should not result in the loss of a wicket by LBW even if the batsman has left the ball . To determine the relevant 'pitching zone', an imaginary line is drawn parallel to the long axis of the pitch from the leg stump.
3. The ball must miss the bat : If the first contact the batsman has of the ball is hitting it with his bat, he should not be out LBW.
4. The ball must intercept a part of the batsman's person : If the ball hits any part of the body or protective gear, it is a potential candidate for LBW (i.e. it need not hit the leg). The one exception is a hand or gloved hand in contact with the bat, which is considered part of the bat. For example, Sachin Tendulkar was famously given out LBW when, ducking under an expected bouncer, the ball actually hit his shoulder (Australia v India, 1999-2000, Adelaide, The Indian Second Innings).
5. The ball must hit in line : The ball must hit the batsman in the region directly between the two wickets. An important exception is that, if the impact is outside the off stump, the batsman can be out LBW if he does not make a genuine attempt to play the ball (that is, if he does not "play a stroke"). If the impact is between wicket and wicket, the playing of a stroke is irrelevant.
6. The ball must have been going to hit the wicket : If the ball's trajectory suggests that it would have missed the wicket had the batsman not been present, then he should not be out LBW.

There are three rules for the interpretation of these conditions: only the first interception of the ball by the body is considered; whether the ball would have pitched after interception is irrelevant; and the identities of the 'off side' and 'leg side' are to be determined by reference to the batsman's stance when the ball comes into play, this is when the bowler starts his run up or, if he has no run up, his bowling action.(law 23 of the Laws of Cricket).

The exception to the fifth condition (ball must impact in line) involves the judgment of the umpire on whether the batsman has attempted to play a shot at the ball. It is designed to prevent batsmen from merely kicking the ball away outside the off stump, which provides no chance of giving up a catch off the bat. A common defensive tactic against spin bowlers is to use the leg pad to defend against balls on the off side, but the LBW rule means they must either have the bat placed near the pad, thus providing a chance for edging a catch to the slip fielders, or risk being ruled out LBW. Some observers, such as Richie Benaud, have suggested that the LBW law be changed so that a batsman can be out if the ball pitches just outside the leg stump, thereby assisting legspinners and preventing negative pad-play.

The LBW rule is always judged by the umpire at the bowler's end. If the fielding team believes a batsman may be out LBW, they must appeal to that umpire for a decision.

All the LBW conditions must be assessed for the delivery, which takes around half a second to reach the batsman. As in other aspects of the rules, the batsman is always given the benefit of any doubt so, if an umpire is unsure, the appeal will be turned down. An example of this is if the batsman takes a step forward before the ball hits the batsman's leg. The ball might well have gone on to hit the wicket, but it is very difficult for the umpire to be certain of this, as the ball would have been 1.5-2 metres in front of the wicket as it hit the batsman's leg.

With the benefit of television replays it is common to show whether or not all of the LBW conditions were satisfied, and thus some people complain that an umpire wrongly allowed a batsman to continue or wrongly gave him out. However since the umpire should be certain that a batsman is out in order to give him out, and he has no benefit of television replay, the umpire's decision is usually appropriate. Most players and commentators acknowledge this and criticism of umpires is minimal.

The LBW decision is arguably the hardest the umpires have to make, and can be a source for commentary and controversy amongst the spectators. In recent years, with the increasing amounts of pressure and money at stake in cricket, several people have been campaigning for a larger role of cameras and simulation technology such as Hawk-Eye to aid the umpire in the uncertain cases. For the moment, LBW remains a decision that falls solely under the purview of the on-field umpire. Change is in the air, however: in September 2005, the International Cricket Council (ICC) authorized a trial run of the use by umpires of television replays to aid in making the call (see external link below).

It is worth noting that a batsman can be out LBW if the ball hits the pad first and then goes on to hit the bat (a so-called pad-bat), but not in the case where the batsman hits the ball with the bat but the ball then goes on to hit his pad (a bat-pad). However, in both cases, a batsman runs the risk of being out caught, as the ball may ricochet off at a relatively low speed for a close fielder (such as silly mid on) to catch.

Should the ball hit the batsman on the full (i.e., without hitting the pitch), then the umpire is to assume that the ball would have continued on its previous trajectory, ignoring any possible deviation as a result of the ball pitching.

---

Goochy it is impossible to be always right (i felt it important you should know that).

But were does it say "It should be taken from stump to stump" as you said Tuesday night.

For those who don't know i actually posted our comments to each other in reverse on whom said what for a giggle. Goochy is very serious when he comes to his cricket knowledge thats one reason why we love the big serious grizzly Bear @ the mm's.


-- Edited by Beaver at 16:42, 2009-01-28

I thought you were unavailable, or you just talking it up.
I do agree with Goochy he did carry you Benny, don't blame it on the drink or the lack of i should say we are all just local swingers on the course.

Your right mate i know i'm an average golfer, i knew this when the new club champoin of our social golf was a one armed fellow. Try telling that to your misses that you lost to a bloke with one arm lol

Beaver wrote:

---

Ladies and Gentleman our assistant Coach who chooses not to be apart of team bonding exercise.

---

I didn't post a smiley face it was a frown.  : - (

mentioned it before but a one armed bloke from HSD caught me in slips around 5-10 yrs back. A might embarrassing on my part.

Just one last word on this game. Just wanted to say a big well done to Rory and Masto on there efforts on the weekend. People may think, looking at the scores, that we lay down and didn't bother but those people would be severely wrong. Our bowlers tried their guts out all day. I actually believe that we bowled well throughout the day!
These 2 men were awesome. Rory the aggressor and Masto, just a super, super innings, being the rock.
Everyone needs a masto.
Well done boys.

Also a big thanks to Slick, Scalesy, Nicko and Sharpy ( hope i didnt miss anyone) who ran drinks out to us all day, every half an hr. These boys didnt do much on the day just sat and watched cricket but really looked after us. So from the Narre T1 side I'd like to say a big thanks to Slocs and his lads.

Terrible wrote:

---

Just one last word on this game. Just wanted to say a big well done to Rory and Masto on there efforts on the weekend. People may think, looking at the scores, that we lay down and didn't bother but those people would be severely wrong. Our bowlers tried their guts out all day. I actually believe that we bowled well throughout the day!
These 2 men were awesome. Rory the aggressor and Masto, just a super, super innings, being the rock.
Everyone needs a masto.
Well done boys.

Also a big thanks to Slick, Scalesy, Nicko and Sharpy ( hope i didnt miss anyone) who ran drinks out to us all day, every half an hr. These boys didnt do much on the day just sat and watched cricket but really looked after us. So from the Narre T1 side I'd like to say a big thanks to Slocs and his lads.

---

Agreed,

There was a lot of effort being put in from my end by the bowlers which I experienced at close quarters.  From memory Rory gave one chance and one half chance, Masto two chances albeit one very late in the day. Good co-operative spirit between both sides which was a pleasure to witness.

You are Barney, change your name Dan.