lbw law- clarification

[daley111]

match yesterday- a bowler was heavily spinning the ball- every time after pitching the turn was remarkable. One ball hit the batsman on the full, it was in line with the middle peg and had it gone on withou turning it would have bowled. I gave not out stating that he was spinning it so much that after it had pitched it may have turned away like his previous balls. He argued that if it hits on the full I should assume it would have gone staright on?

If that ball was the first he had bowled and I had not seen the turn I may well have given out lbw- ??

Advice please

[missingleg]

If the ball is intercepted without pitching you always assume it would have continued its line, and disregard potential turn. See this thread already started:

nompere.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=basiclaw&action=display&thread=506

Law 36 2. Interception of the ball
it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.