|
|
Post by Number 6 on Aug 10, 2008 14:59:01 GMT
I was watching Monty this afternoon and he bowled a few deliveries which, if not for the leg side rule I thought stood a fair chance of gaining a positive LBW decision.
That got me thinking "why does the leg side rule exist" and I admit that I don't know. Can someone enlighten me please?
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 10, 2008 19:42:53 GMT
If the ball is going down the leg side it can't be out because it would have missed the stumps.
I jest.
I think the reason why you can't be out to a ball pitching outside leg has to do with the batsman's blind spot where it becomes increasingly difficult to hit the ball too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Aug 10, 2008 19:53:12 GMT
Very funny ;D
Seriously, yes, I assume it's something along the same lines as the "wides rule" on the legside but having said that one can bowl a legal ball down the leg side so why shouldn't that same legal ball be allowed to get the batsman out LBW? If it pitches legside and turns sharply a-la Shane Warne and actually hits the stumps then he's out. Why not for LBW? Is there a reason or is it just one of those arcane things that "just are"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Aug 11, 2008 18:33:45 GMT
According to Gerald Brodribb's excellent book "Next Man In", the original LBW laws required the ball to be delivered straight - various wordings over the years.
It was only in 1935 that the MCC first experimented with allowing LBWs when the ball pitched outside the off stump.
There has never been any time in history when balls pitched outside leg stump could be considered for LBW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Aug 12, 2008 21:50:28 GMT
There has never been any time in history when balls pitched outside leg stump could be considered for LBW. Yes, agreed. Yet a ball pitched outside leg can legally get the batsman out by hitting the stumps. There's no difference really, if one is allowed then so should the other be. Just my random musings. |
|
