LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

Top Contributors
J

Jeffa901

New Member
LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

After some reason debate at my cricket club some confusion has arised regarding the LBW rule when the batter is hit with on the pads with a full toss.

Now I know that the if a batter is hit full pitch by a spinner it is to be assumed by the umpire that the ball will continue straight on from it's path, and that the umpires is to not predict any spin that may have occured or movement off the pitch.

Assuming the following delivery by a pace bowler;
- that the ball is a legal delivery and it hit the pads on the full toss in line with the stumps (the line between wicket to wicket) such as on the leg stump, middle or offstump.
- the batsman did not hit the ball prior to it hitting the pad
- the ball was a big inswinging delivery and was bowled from along side the stumps (not wide on the crease) and hit the pad off a full toss.

1. Would this be given out LBW automatically as the ball is to be assumed to be going straight on towards the stumps after interception by the pad? OR

2. Do you assume the ball will continue on the same path after hitting the pad? I.E. if it is an inswinger (to a right hander) and hit the pad in front of middle stump do you assume it would have continued to swing following it hitting the pad, in which case it really would have missed the leg stump?

After the recent debate my understanding of this particular rule is no clearer as the LBW rule listed on Top Stories - News - Lord's has a few contradictions as to what is out with an full toss LBW appeal.

I hope what I am trying to ask is clear enough. Any links to a good explaination on this scenario or any info to back up one's opinion would be appreciated.

Jeff
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

My thoughts are that most umpires will use their common sense (funny I know but surely they all have it ...)

If it is a massive inswinging delevery and they have been bowling this for the whole innings, the umpire should give it not out if strucking him on leg stumped.

It should be reworded to "if ball hits player on the full, the path of the ball before striking should continue on instead of straight on"
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

Sorry I meant straight on the path, not straight at the stumps. Early morning start was confusing myself a little.
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

The "straight on" part that you mention is to be used for spinners, not quick bowlers. In the circumstances that you mention, it would to be deemed NOT OUT, as the ball would not be continuing on to the wickets.

If it is a spinner it is not deemed to go dead straight, but to be deemed that it will continue straight on from the path that it is travelling.

Hope this helps!
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

so either way if it hits the batter on middle stump and his been swinging a mile towards leg it's probably not 100% conclusive that it will hit the stumps and it 'may' be the right decision to give it not out if you think it 'will' swing too much?

i bowl leg spin in games so i'm well aware of the rule for spinners but the general assumption around the club was it was the same for pace bowlers aswell.

Even spinners can drift a ball inwards and hit a batter in line with the stumps but it would still be going down leg. In this case it is still NOT OUT right?
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

Jeffa901;385488 said:
so either way if it hits the batter on middle stump and his been swinging a mile towards leg it's probably not 100% conclusive that it will hit the stumps and it 'may' be the right decision to give it not out if you think it 'will' swing too much?

i bowl leg spin in games so i'm well aware of the rule for spinners but the general assumption around the club was it was the same for pace bowlers aswell.

Even spinners can drift a ball inwards and hit a batter in line with the stumps but it would still be going down leg. In this case it is still NOT OUT right?
Click to expand...

It goes straight on the path that it is traveling. ie not continue to swing. BUT in saying that you need to remember the angle the bowler is bowling, for example, if Mitchell Johnson is bowling around the wicket and hits a RH batsmen on the full in front of middle and leg, it is not going to hit the wickets due to the angle he is bowling. You must take it that the ball will continue to travel on the same line not completely change the angle saying the ball will go straight and hit middle!
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

Given this question is more technical in nature rather than specifically pertaining to international cricket, I'm going to move it to the Bowling forum.
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

This is part of the ruling for LBW's. According to this you would continue the path of the ball after interception? if the ball was swinging before it hit the pad, you would assume it would continue to swing at the same angle had the pad not got in the way? yes/no?

www.lords.org; said:
2. Interception of the ball
(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, 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.
Click to expand...
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

Caesar;385493 said:
Given this question is more technical in nature rather than specifically pertaining to international cricket, I'm going to move it to the Bowling forum.
Click to expand...
I created it in the internation cricket section as my question related to umpiring and cricket laws in general. I didnt see an umpiring section so that is why i created it there. All good though if it is in the correct section now :)
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

No worries. The 'World of Cricket' section tends to be more fan-based discussion of the professional game. The Tips & Drills section is generally more about stuff involved in playing cricket, which means you'll probably get more of a player's/umpire's perspective here.
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

as far as i understand it, and as has already been said, if the ball hits the pads full toss then the umpire judges the decision on the direction that the ball had travelled prior to hitting the pads (including any swing). this is the same for both fast bowlers AND spin bowlers though, there is no difference in the decision process.

e.g. a fast bowler is bowling over the wicket, very tight to the stumps, the ball isnt swinging, and the ball hits the batsman between middle and off at a sensible height. that is out.

a right handed fast bowler bowls from round the wicket, very wide on the crease to a left hander. the ball is inswinging to the leftie as well. it hits him on the pads at a sensible height, but inline with middle stump. the umpire will then have to make a judgement on whether the ball is going to miss leg stump, which it most likely is given the angle of the delivery plus the swing. just because it hit inline doesnt mean its out.

the exact same would apply for a spin bowler. instead of swing the umpire would have to take account of drift. but ultimately the exact same rules apply. there is no "straightening" rule for either type of bowler, the ball is assumed to follow the same path it had prior to hitting the pads.

the only difference between a full toss and a ball that pitches first is that a spinner might turn the ball off the pitch. whereas for a full toss it is assumed the ball will follow the same path as it had through the air (since the umpire cant predict the turn when the ball hasnt bounced!).

also, if it hits full toss then the "leg side" rule is void. so a right hand bowler coming round the wicket can hit a right hand batsman full toss on the leg outside leg stump. but if the angle meant that it would go straight on to the stumps then that is still out. the leg side rule only applies if the ball pitches first. and then of course it cant be given out, regardless of the line.
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

Jim2109;385561 said:
so a right hand bowler coming round the wicket can hit a right hand batsman full toss on the leg outside leg stump. but if the angle meant that it would go straight on to the stumps then that is still out. the leg side rule only applies if the ball pitches first. and then of course it cant be given out, regardless of the line.
Click to expand...
I did not know that! I have never heard about this rule before or thought about this scenario.
Have you ever witnessed a an LBW being given in a situation such as the one you mentioned?

EDIT: I looked it up and actually that is wrong. A ball intercepted outside leg stump is deemed to have PITCHED outside leg stump & cannot be out LBW.
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

I have just recieved clarification from the Umpires and Scorers Association in South Aust.

The line of flight must be followed in all cases. So the direction in which the ball travels through the air is followed.

When impact is made with the body, this direction is followed, regardless whether he is in front of the stumps or not.

The rule particularly comes into effect when a spinner is bowling, after pitching, the direction of the ball is to continue in the straight line if the point of impact is on the full.

No allowance is to be made for the spin element after the ball pitches.

We are happy to visit on a night that suits your club to cover the basic rules and answer any queries that may arise.

It would be a straight line down the path it came.

This has a big difference between a bowler who bowls in line with stump to stump (an advantage for LBW) or one who bowls out wide or around the wicket (if a batsman plays a shot and is forward, it makes it very difficult for a favorable LBW decision as he may be outside the line of wicket / wicket and their would generally be some element of doubt).
 
Re: LBW Rull Clarification when struck on a Full Toss

Jeffa901;385845 said:
I did not know that! I have never heard about this rule before or thought about this scenario.
Have you ever witnessed a an LBW being given in a situation such as the one you mentioned?

EDIT: I looked it up and actually that is wrong. A ball intercepted outside leg stump is deemed to have PITCHED outside leg stump & cannot be out LBW.
Click to expand...

youre right, id never seen it specifically stated so made the assumption that it was legal, and the rulebook wording always states intercepted deliveries and pitching ones as 2 seperate entities. but after a few mins searching google ive found somewhere that states that an intercepted ball is covered by the same rules as a pitching one. which kinda sucks, i was hoping to use that to my advantage lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top