|
|
Post by daley111 on Jul 9, 2011 3:55:40 GMT
argument between myself and other umpire- a spin bowler came onto bowl and the first ball hit on the full in front of middle peg- it would have bowled him- he was given out lbw.
What if the bowler was turning the ball on every delivery- and then after a few deliveries the ball hits on the full, it could have been expected to have spun away form the stumps even though this was the same ball delivery that was given out on the first ball (when the skills of the bowler were not known)
So- if its in front does the umpire have to consider the spin?
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 10, 2011 22:02:47 GMT
Hi.
The answer is if the ball hits on the full, all you have to decide is whether or not the line of the ball would take it onto the stumps. You can completely disregard potential bounce/turn/seam even if the batsman is way down the pitch - if it's straight and hits on the full, (and the rest of the lbw critera are met) it's out.
Even if the bowler has been turning it square and ripping the ball, if it hits on the full you must assume it will continue its line and not spin at all.
see Law 36.2(b) (kindly supplied by Reggie Duff)
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by SUHAS SAPRE on Aug 17, 2011 2:59:41 GMT
Hi,
This refers to Law (LBW) 36.2 (b) Interception of the ball. Where ball is intercepted directly (full toss), it has to be assumed the path of the ball would have continued irrespective of ball might deviate after pitching.
Earlier it was clear cut that the ball intercepted full pitch, and as the umpire is not aware about its further path and its deviation, if there would be any, the umpire may or may not give the batsman out LBW. The batsman used to get benefit of doubt.
But of late 2010 Laws, the scenario has changed irrespective of whether the ball would turn or deviate had it pitched after deviation. And as such in your case, the batsman is out LBW and does not get benefit of doubt. I am also of the opinion that the umpire should be empowered to decide on the issue, where ball is turning a lot and any full toss ball may or may not hit the stump had it pitched, if not intercepted on the full. Many times I have happened to witness, full toss ball missed by the striker, pitching into the block hole in line with the stumps and still misses the stumps by a narrow margin.
SUHAS SAPRE (BARODA 17/08/2011)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on Aug 17, 2011 6:24:03 GMT
But of late 2010 Laws, the scenario has changed SUHAS SAPRE (BARODA 17/08/2011) Suhas, I am unaware of any material change to the LBW law in the 2010 Laws. There are grammatical changes only to make it read a bit easier, and a reference to Appendix D has been inserted. The application of law 36 has not changed one iota from the previous Laws though. Please correct me if I am wrong here. |
|
|
|
Post by topumpire1 on Jul 21, 2012 22:23:48 GMT
exactly Reggie Duff, ball hitting on the full has to be assumed IS going straight on, indeed, it might even have HIT the stumps (Had it not been intercepted by the batsmans person) on the full. This also includes if the ball is intercepted by the batsman's person on the full, would have hit the stumps on the full, but then had it pitched behind the line of the stumps outside the line of the leg stump. At one time, if I remember, a ball that would have pitched outside the line of the leg stump could be "not out" even if that pitching would have been b eyond those stumps.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jul 22, 2012 18:03:50 GMT
exactly Reggie Duff, ball hitting on the full has to be assumed IS going straight on, indeed, it might even have HIT the stumps (Had it not been intercepted by the batsmans person) on the full. This also includes if the ball is intercepted by the batsman's person on the full, would have hit the stumps on the full, but then had it pitched behind the line of the stumps outside the line of the leg stump. At one time, if I remember, a ball that would have pitched outside the line of the leg stump could be "not out" even if that pitching would have been b eyond those stumps. Have to disagree with the first part of your sentence topumpire, the ball is assumed to continue on it's trajectory. i.e. if it is swinging, it will continue to swing in that direction, it will not change direction and straighten. |
|
|
|
Post by daley1111 on Aug 7, 2012 3:24:02 GMT
totally agree with last comment-= simply if it hits on the full the ball must be assumed that it would have continued on its same trajectory after impact as it was travelling before. ie if it was swinging before interception then that must be considered as to whether it would have hit the stumps. Its quite simple.
|
|
