Talk:Leg before wicket

Revision

Revised text to add (IMHO) clarity. Added some comment about bat-pad.--Baggie 11:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Definitely better, although maybe not the best it could be yet. So much to do, so little time! dmmaus 22:09, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Add

Please add:

1. The unusual dismissal of Sachin during the falling trajectory.
2. First batsman to be given out using TV replays

[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:43, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Playing no stroke to balls outside the off

>> to any ball pitched outside off stump even if the batsmen's legs were also outside off stump - which has been put into place in some measure since 1970.

I thought it was added in the 1980 code. Shall I change it if this is correct ? Tintin 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Mistakes

It isn't true that if the ball is going over the stumps it can't be out. It has to be at the correct height.

It also isn't true that the path the ball would have taken after it hits the batsman doesn't count. It is one of the major factors in making a decision. For example, if the ball hits the batsman in front of leg stump but is going past the leg stump, it isn't out.

Both of those two things should be changed. Cheers.

It is not technically correct to say that the batsman should not be out if the ball pitches outside leg stump. A legal delivery is one that bounces 'no more than twice.' The LBW law only says that the ball must pitch in line or outside off. It does not say that this condition has to be satisfied more than once in the case of a ball pitching twice. (I've now fixed this by using the word 'only,' i.e. the batsman may not be out if the ball only pitches outside leg.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.40.249 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

a ball can pitch only once - its first contact with the ground, like a golf ball. It can bounce several times. That is why both words (pitch and bounce) are used. Or perhaps you have better support for your interpretation? Tsinfandel (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The part about cameras and Hawk-Eye not being used officially is outdated and incorrect. Seems to be written in around 2005, when electronic systems were not yet used. Nowadays there is a third umpire deciding "reviewed" situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.46.206 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Semantics

'Cannot' changed to 'should not' which is the term used in the laws of the game. This is not mere semantics, many a batsmen has been given 'out' when the ball has pitched outside leg-stump, been hit with the bat first, going oer the stumps. Franz-kafka 12:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

(Moved from Sarastro's talk page)

(a) Long before URDS, in the 2002 ICC Champions trophy, the umpire could refer to the third umpire if he had doubts about an lbw. I don't remember remember whether it was used in any other tests/ODIs.

I found a ref, but not too sure if it's worth putting in. The article already says that there were trials. Do we need to mention this one in 2002? Open to suggestions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO we should say when it was first used, and especially as it was tried at the international level itself. Just like we say about the experimental amendments to 1935 and 1970 laws before they were written into the Laws. From a quick check, players were allowed to refer to the 3rd umpire in the 2006 Champions Trophy. Tintin 02:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(b) Looking at http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152418.html, an important change is that it reversed the 1935 amendment. Perhaps it is worth a mention. But in the 1980 code "or on the off side of the Striker's wicket" is back.

This is covered: next sentence after this ref: "This meant that any batsman playing a shot could not be out if the ball pitched outside odd stump, in contrast to the 1935 law". Then the 1980 return to 1935 conditions first took place in 1972, which is also covered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(c) Perhaps a word on how the law is used for reverse sweeps and switch hits.

Not sure I can find a source which explicitly links this to the law. There is a note which links off/leg side to the batting stance, but does not mention any shots. Making this link without a source is borderline WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, I think. If anyone has an explicit source, I can add it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-give-switch-hit-all-clear,1077,NS.html is the most straightforward one that I can find. Tintin 02:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(d) "However, there was a clause in the 1744 laws which gave umpires the power to take action if the batsman was "standing unfair to strike" - From a quick check it seems to refer to fielders, not batsmen - "They are sole judges of all hindrances, crossing ye Players in running, and standing unfair to strike, and in any case of hindrances may order a Notch to be scored." Please check this again. Tintin 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The source I use explicitly links lbw to this clause, and we have to follow the sources unless a better source contradicts it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll send a mail to BlackJack on whether it is Brodribb's own interpretation or a universally accepted one. If it does refer to lbw, there would be some batsmen given out that way and BJ would know. Tintin 02:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No reply from BlackJack. So will pass for now. Tintin 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's good to get Tintin's views because he's a real expert on the laws, far more so than I am. I'm happy to leave him to comment on the history of the LBW law and confine myself to a couple of remarks about the intro and the definition sections. It all reads pretty well, I reckon, but then I rather expect that of your work – you set yourself a very high standard!

I think the intro is a bit too detailed (and a bit daunting for non-cricket people), and probably needs to have just the simple definition, an explanation of why such a law is needed, and then a sentence or so to say that what sounds like a very simple law actually is both complex (because of later modifications to the simple rule) and controversial (because of the element of subjectivity in its adjudication). You could quote Brodribb in the intro: "No dismissal has produced so much argument as L.B.W."

Then you come to the detailed definition, and here I think you might usefully use bulletpoints to clarify the non-straightforward criteria that are now in the laws: the occasions where pitching off-line and hitting the batsman out-of-line can now produce a dismissal, and the converse side where no dismissal will result.

BTW is the Brodribb reference correct at 1995? Maybe that's the edition you have: mine is 1952, so doesn't have modern changes to the laws or modern examples of incidents connected to them. Johnlp (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, trimmed back the lead and took out all the technical stuff. Also added the Brodribb quote. Re the bullets, I'm not too sure about bullets here. I'm not too sure the MOS would approve and I have vague hopes of GA/FA in future. And personally, I don't like 'em! But happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right about bullets, though they do help in lists, which this sort-of is (List of circs in which you can be out LBW, followed by list of circs in which you can't). But maybe it was that I stuttered a bit over the "However" in the first paragraph and the footnotes, and also the bit about appealing and no-balls seemed in a strange order. It could be just a case of re-paragraphing and trying to bring the explanation provided by the footnotes into the text (which would I think help the non-cricket readers). Johnlp (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a proper look at the article yet, but for the "Development of the law" section, you may find "Dates in Cricket History" from the 1978 Wisden useful. (Versions of the article appeared in a number of other Wisden editions over the years, but this is the one that's available online.) See in particular the "EVOLUTION OF THE LAWS OF CRICKET" section, which devotes a subsection to lbw. JH (talk page) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look now, but so far I haven't got beyond the lead, because IMO it needs a lot of work. I've made a few improvements to the wording, but have the following more substantive points:

• "Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat." Suggest: "Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat or his hand holding the bat."

• "However, the laws of cricket only allow a batsman to be given out leg before wicket in a certain set of conditions, which take account of the side of the pitch on which the ball was bowled, and where the batsman is struck in relation to the wickets." The second part of the sentence seems likely to confuse, and this much detail isn't really needed in the lead. How about moving the sentence to the start of the next para and merging it with the following sentence to give: "However, the laws of cricket only allow a batsman to be given out leg before wicket in a certain set of conditions; as a result the leg before wicket law is often described as the most complicated law in cricket, and the one which the general public find the most difficult to understand."

• "The law arose when prominent batsmen..." I don't think you need "prominent".

• "The law arose when prominent batsmen began to use their pads to prevent the ball hitting their wicket." I think the law actually predates the use of pads. The law dates from 1774, whereas (apart from one early experimenter) I think pads only came in during the first half of the 19th century.

JH (talk page) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• All these done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One other thought: the claim at the very end of the lead that the use of technology has led to an increase in lbw dismissals needs a citation to support it. There are probably a few other places in the lead where a citation would be a good idea. JH (talk page) 09:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A citation is not needed in the lead as long as one is provided in the main body, which is the case here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Current definition is wrong?

I don't think that the following sentence is correct: "However, the batsman is also lbw if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, it strikes him outside the off stump and would have gone on to hit the wickets". This scenario is already covered by the preceding text. Rather than an "also", I think that what is required is an "except": "However the batsman is not out lbw if the ball strikes him outside the off stump and he has made a genuine attempt to hit the ball (but failed to do so)". What do other people think please?Zin92 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The two sentences are: "For the batsman to be lbw, the ball must pitch in line with the wickets at either end of the pitch, or on the off side of the stumps. Then the ball must strike any part of the batsman's body, without first touching his bat, in line with the wickets and have been going on to hit the stumps. However, the batsman is also lbw if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, it strikes him outside the off stump and would have gone on to hit the wickets." The first sentence does not refer to the ball striking outside off stump and therefore this is not covered by the preceding text as these are two separate considerations: where it pitches and where it strikes the batsman. And regarding the second sentence, my personal view is that it is better to say when the batsman IS rather than IS NOT lbw: for example, he is not out lbw if he hits the ball, or it would not have struck the stumps, or it is too high, etc. Furthermore, this is how it is covered in the laws. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed but I obviously found it difficult to appreciate the difference between the scenarios described in the second and third sentences. So how about we change them to read: "Then without first touching his bat, the ball must strike any part of the batsman's body in line with the wickets and have been going on to hit the stumps. Or, if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, strike any part of the batsman's body outside the off stump and have being going on to hit the stumps."? To my mind, this makes it easier to appreciate the difference between the two scenarios. Zin92 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I see what you are getting at: the "however" can lead to some confusion. I've altered this, but I think the rest of the wording is better as it currently stands. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ball continuing in a straight line reference is wrong?

It is currently stated that "It is assumed that the ball would have continued in a straight line after hitting the batsman, even if it would have bounced before striking the stumps" and that this is as per reference 3. I don't think that this is an accurate cite of reference 3. There is nothing in reference 3 to the ball continuing in a straight line. What do other people think please?Zin92 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The law currently states (given in ref 3): "In assessing point (e) in 1 above [the ball would have hit the wicket], 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." It does not say "straight line" but per close paraphrasing and copyvio, we cannot just copy the text from the laws. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can use "straight line" though because the ball may swing and the umpire will take this into account when assessing where the ball would have gone if it hadn't struck the batsman. Zin92 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are spot on and I have changed this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leg before wicket/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 23:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General

• Images are fine
  • Has Alternative text, though the third image is a tad simplistic.  ;)
• Sources look good
• No issue with close paraphrasing
• NPOV is good
• Article is stable

Definition

• "...of equivalent difficulty to football's offside rule." - it may seem a little pedantic, but given there are multiple codes of football, of which more than one has an offside rule, it would make sense to specify that this refers to association football

• The link was already to association football, but point taken and I have clarified it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Alteration to the law

• "you will see the wicketkeeper standing back and a meditum pace bowler in action" - I assume that is a typo of "medium"?

• Yes, and a slightly embarrassing one! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Effects of technology

• "Analysis by Douglas Miller indicates..." - Who is Douglas Miller? If he is a noted expert, it would help to state that. Right now I read as "Random guy says..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Trends

• Is there any noted trends outside of the English county leagues? Places such as Australia or in international matches?

• There may be, but to the best of my knowledge there has been no analysis of it in a reliable source. It is probably possible to do this analysis for international matches as there are some very impressive stats engines for international cricket, but to do so may be too close to OR for comfort. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. I worried that would be the case. Given there wasn't much that needed work to begin with, I am now passing the article. Congrats! Resolute 00:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall

• An excellent article. As someone with a just-slightly-above-basic understanding of cricket, I found the article easy to read and understand. I am pretty much ready to pass the article as-is, but want to put it on hold briefly to see if my question on trends has an answer. Cheers, Resolute 23:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference

Overall I love the way this is, but any authoritative work on the Laws must surely cite Marylebone Cricket Club, Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011 ISBN 978-0-297-866441-1.

In addition to Law 36 verbatim, it contains 13 photos and some 3000 words of authoritative commentary that explain how umpires should interpret the Law, and is used by all official umpires and scorers in the UK for their training and for reference; for all I know is used much more widely worldwide.

I'm not saying any of the current text needs to change, only that if the article is to be authoritative it must claim to be informed by this book.

Atconsul (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read this book before, and consulted it in expanding the article, but I can't say that it struck me that anything should be included. The book is more to help umpires than about the law itself, and I think the sourcing of the article is fine. The definitive work on the laws is probably Brodribb, in terms of their evolution and where they came from, as opposed to an umpire's guide. However, if anyone thinks it is important, the title could be added to a "Further reading" section. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

One who has read it has been been informed by it. 'The definitive work on the laws is probably Brodribb' is a historian's view, not an umpire's. The comment reads as if the main use case supposed for the article is of someone trying to understand how cricket has evolved. I am very interested in that, too, but the main heading LBW should surely inform those who want to know how to play the game now, in fact that may be the most important use case, and for such a use Tom Smith is very important, and Broadribb inconsequential. Atconsul (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is stretching the purpose of an encyclopaedia article: it is not a coaching manual and should be aimed more at the general reader than aspiring players or umpires. It is for everyone, and the majority of readers will not be umpires. But if you think anything is missing, feel free to add it to the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

definition

A couple of details about the definition.

The text now says "]. Alternatively". The "]" is a typo. But alternatively to what? The text should mean alternatively to the specific criterion that it hits him in line with the wickets, but is open to interpretation.

In paraphrasing the Law, I think the text now says that the ball needs to *pitch* although the MCC guidelines are cited discussing the case when it doesn't. The ball doesn't have to pitch, and the only way it matters at all is that if it pitches outside leg it's not out.

One case that catches people out here is that if ball hits the batsman first without pitching, but ouside the line of leg stump, that's always not out.

By the way, on the historic side, the MCC guidance on this stems I believe from the modern re-introduction of leg spin as a weapon in Test cricket, and to the Pakistan legspinner Abdul Qadir's series in England in 1982 in particular. After his appeal against Botham at Lords was turned down when everyone agreed the ball had hit the batsman full toss in front of middle, the umpires were unsure if they were supposed to predict whether the ball was a leg break or a googly, a tremendous feat given that none of the England batsmen could do it. This was a big embarassment to HQ, given also the absence of any assumption of goodwill between the protagonist's administrators, an absence that shook the Establishment when an English umpire was later (1987) asked by the visitors to stand down in his own land (he didn't), and that culminated in the nadir of Faisalabad later in the same year with more or less the same cast of characters.

A lot of unnecessary vexation over the years has been caused by using the textual mode of argumentation, so beloved of the legal profession, to discuss, define and explain LBW. The *definition* is not really that hard if expressed in pictures, or the language of logic, and I dare say this is one of Hawkeye's least problematic programming tasks. The ACO (Association of Cricket Officials) published a Flowchart "LBW-WHY NOT?" for training umpires. Unfortunately this claims copyright ACO, but I can say that EVERY LBW question needs to satisfy exactly 7 tests to be out, except for the special case 'first point of impact outside the line of off stump' which requires the extra, eighth test 'was a genuine attempt made to play the ball with the bat?'

Since algorithms aren't copyright, I believe one can freely express it in one's own presentation, thus:

Was there an appeal?	NO ->	Say Nowt
Valid Delivery?	NO ->	Not Out
Ball hitting wicket?	NO ->	Not Out
Hit bat first?	YES ->	Not Out
Pitched outside leg?	YES ->	Not Out
First impact outside leg?	YES ->	Not Out
First impact outside off?	YES ->	Genuine attempt to play ball with bat?	YES ->	Not Out
			NO ->	!!OUT!!
!!OUT!!

Atconsul (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the typo and took out "alternatively". Regarding "pitch", I cannot think of a better word to use, and I think it is accurate enough as a ball that does not bounce on the ground will still bounce on the batsman, so in that sense, it will still pitch. And the term is a "full pitch" too. If it doesn't pitch somewhere, it can't be lbw. In terms of leg side, the article covers this quite thoroughly, and I'm afraid I'm not too clear what you are asking with the rest of your comments. I've never heard the Abdul Qadir story (how he prompted the MCC guidance), and though I have no reason to doubt it, I'm not sure of its relevance to this article. And it would need to be referenced anyway. There is already an explanatory image in the text, and a link to an excellent illustration of the lbw "process". So I'm not sure what point you are making. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not the sense that practitioners use the word 'pitch' and its derivatives in this context. To pitch means to bounce on the pitch! The phrase "full pitch" means to reach the batsman without pitching. That's how Note 2 (ref 5) uses it "...The ball pitches in line with the wickets if, when bowled, it lands in the area directly between these stumps." That's also the sense in "The MCC guidance states ... strikes the batsman without pitching ... shorter time between the ball pitching and striking the batsman." The ball does NOT need to pitch to be LBW. So now it seems that that the error in the text is an error of interpretation, not of wording, and we get to the text "for the batsman to be adjudged lbw, the ball must pitch in line with the wickets or on the off side of the stumps," which is NOT true. This text does not correctly interpret Law 36.1(b), which also allows for the case when striker intercepts the ball full pitch, i.e. it allows him to be out LBW.

• To me, this is splitting hairs a touch and not really a big deal. But I've reworded, taking it from the laws (which I just realised have changed url on the MCC website) and hopefully this resolves the issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"The umpire must assume that the ball would have continued on the same trajectory after striking the batsman, even if it would have bounced before hitting the stumps." This is where Qadir comes in. He made this Law. The references do exist to back up the case, but I'm not offering them so I am just chatting, but I intended this as an anecdote to back up the point about the full toss (phrase synonymous with full pitch, but not always used interchangeably) LBW, and attempting to illustrate what the words mean, which is what I think in general this article is very good at.

• I seem to remember that this "interpretation" came rather more recently than that. There was some fuss about yorkers on broken pitches which would turn and miss the stumps, or some such. I don't have any older references to interpretation other than what the MCC provide; perhaps older editions of Tom Smith may have this? But not something I ever remember reading. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"In terms of leg side, the article covers this quite thoroughly." Following on the same theme above, the article says "However, he cannot be lbw if the ball pitches on the leg side of the stumps." That is correct. But it is not all there is to say. If the ball hits the batsman first without pitching, but outside the line of leg stump, that's always not out. That is another case to that of the ball pitching outside leg stump.

• The laws do not explicitly say this, although it is clearly implied. A ref somewhere else may make the point better. I no longer have access to Tom Smith, but again, this may be covered in there if you feel it should be made explicit. I'm inclined to say we are OK as we are. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The law precisely covers this in 36.1.(d). But here the text vs logic problem is writ large: 36.1.(d).(i) covers first impact between the wickets, ,36.1.(d).(ii) covers first impact outside off. What remains is outside leg, so not out LBW. See the flowchart above! Atconsul (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"There is already an explanatory image in the text, and a link to an excellent illustration of the lbw "process". So I'm not sure what point you are making." Well the point I thought I was making is that it isn't as easy to write precisely and authoritatively about the definition of LBW as it seems, but from this exchange the main reason is that we have some definition of terms to nail down first. But even when that is done I think I will still want to make the case that the main heading LBW should surely inform those who want to know how to play the game now. Atconsul (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• As I say above, I think that would miss the point of an encyclopaedia slightly. If someone wanting to play or umpire is looking here to find things out, cricket has come to a pretty pass!

I don't really understand what WikiProject Cricket is about if this is part of the manifesto. Why would anyone want to promote the project if they didn't put participation - in its broadest sense - in cricket centre stage?

'Those who want to know how to play the game now' is a broad use that encompasses the knowledgeable spectator and the curious who want to become knowledgeable. For those that look up LBW, I think such readers outnumber those just browsing or looking for a historical perspective. A coaching manual is different. Early on we have 'In his 1998 survey of cricket laws, Gerald Brodribb states...' which is an excellent jumping-off point. It demands a popular response that demystifies the *practice* of LBW in a way Wikipedia is best-placed to do.

Although, as I discuss, the Definition can be improved, I really don't want to add anything, maybe just finesse the structure. Here, the head piece quickly dives into Georgian history. Many readers won't come to the page for history at all. They want to get in, get the facts of LBW now and get out. If that's what they want to do they will come to Wikipedia, not Lords or ICC. If Wikipedia is accurate why go anywhere else? I'd rather they got the facts here than trying to guess them in conversation in the playground, clubhouse or stand, which is what they are doing without Wikipedia, although watching Hawkeye replays will genuinely elevate their understanding. I think this is the most important use case to address and should dictate the main flow. It should be possible to do it on a smart phone whilst standing at a bus stop.Atconsul (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That isn't really the way it works here. See WP:NOT, particularly WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTGUIDE. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Already read all this before posting. What is it about my use case that isn't really the way it works here? My reading of the style guides is that they don't encourage anyone to say what audience they *are* writing for or *why*, a major limitation, and one that isn't assessed in the QA which, interestingly, has been done by 'someone with a just-slightly-above-basic understanding of cricket'. What is the point about writing about the definition of LBW without directly addressing the most important use case? When I was a lad and read encyclopedias I didn't do it so that I could use snippets on Mastermind, I did it so that I could learn useful things. I also respect those that use them to learn interesting things. Atconsul (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And, having laboured for a long time trying to write a definition that is both correct, precise and intelligible to non-cricketers, I am very aware that it is not easy to write about. I would love to use some images, but copyright is the usual problem. Hence the suggestion to link to the BBC images for anyone who wants a more visual explanation. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate both the labour expended and the difficulties encountered. Atconsul (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My last word on this, for we are going round in circles and I suspect neither of us is getting, or will get, the other's point. If you see problems, WP:SOFIXIT or present a concrete sourced wording here for discussion. Please bear in mind this is a Featured article which has been reviewed by several users, including cricket specialists, and any huge changes would need discussing. Otherwise, we are going nowhere fast. I don't particularly want to get into a philosophical debate here, so I will not reply further unless some practical changes are made or discussed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I fully understand that point of view at least, although I must say I can't find anything that supports your statement that the article has been reviewed by 'cricket specialists' whatever that might entail. Do these specialists include coaches, umpires, administrators, players, journalists and fans?

If I were to be bold, I would

a) produce and include some graphical content for distribution as open-source,

b) combine it with some non-sentence-text expression of the logic of the Definition as I have outlined, probably making more use of bullet-list or other list-style presentation for technical explanatory text there

and

c) somewhat reorganise the flow so that current-fact-seekers are as well-served as historical/browsing readers (I'm not clear if you do agree that this is the essence of the non-consensus we are discovering).

However, I really don't care to invest that much if the result is going to be that someone claims consensus around the position that 'That isn't really the way it works here.' I'm not *that* bold. So over to you and your consensus: are you open to an improvement of the article in that way or would you prefer to stick?

Atconsul (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the algorithm approach. Wizzy…☎ 06:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

lbw?

Leg before wicket (lbw) is one of the ways in which a batsman can be dismissed in the sport of cricket. The basis of the law is that, following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire may rule a batsman out lbw76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, bad eyesight i guess, my eyes must have jumped over the explanation.76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

DRS and Hawkeye

The article covers the use of Hawkeye in the Desicion Review System (DRS) and also says that is regarded as 100 % accurate. This last part is not the case in actual use. Hawkeye is regarded as having an error and as a result half the diameter of the ball belongs to the umpire during any DRS review.

For example say, following an appeal for a wicket, the umpire calls, "Not out!, the fielding side calls for a review. During the review, Hawkeye clearly shows that the ball would have hit (say) off stump, but half the ball's diameter or less was attempting to occupy the same space as the stump, the umpires original decision of "Not out" will stand. The reverse situation is also the case if a finger is raised following the appeal.

The article also fails to explain why the LBW law is as complex as it is. It is based on the simple philosophy that the batsman has to stand somewhere. The batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches on the leg side of the stumps because that is where he has to stand to guard his wicket. Similarly, the batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches outside off stump because he has to step in front of the wicket in order to play such a ball (providing that he is genuinely attempting to do so). 86.140.30.40 (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources which say this? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is pointed out by the TV broadcasters every time an LBW decision is referred to the third umpire where the ball passes close to the edge of the stumps one way or the other. Sky Sports would therefore be the reliable source. The third umpires themselves are thus a secondary source because they regularly apply the rule as given. The area of half a ball's diameter around the outside of the stumps and just inside the stumps is known as the 'umpire's call' area. I note that the article on Umpire Decision Review System has a more complex set of rules but they are totally uncited (and now tagged).

There was a blunder in a match between South Africa and Pakistan where third umpire Billy Bowden misapplied the rules (I have sufficient faith in Bowden to assume it was a misunderstanding of the rules). Jaques Kallis was given out 'caught' by the on field umpire (Steve Davis if memory serves - obviously not playing snooker that day!). Kallis immediately referred the decision 'upstairs'. Bowden confirmed that the ball had not touched Kallis's bat but had brushed his pad. He then observed that Hawkeye showed that the ball would have clipped the leg stump (within the half ball's diameter) had it not been deflected by Kallis's pad and altered the on field umpire's decision to 'out LBW'. Following the inevitable row, the ICC issued a statement stating that Bowden had (incorrectly) applied the principle that the fielders' appeal covers all forms of dismissal. The statement went on to state that the on field decision of 'out' only applied to the mode of dismissal actually given by the umpire. If the third umpire then considers other modes of dismissal, then they must be considered as though a 'not out' on field decision was given as the third umpire is overturning the on field umpire's decision. The benefit of doubt therefore belongs to the batsman. In Kallis's case above, the LBW decision should have been a 'not out'.

There are those (including myself and one Sir Ian Botham) who believe that the side referring the decision should not lose a referral when the umpire's decision is not overturned because the ball is less than half a ball's diameter into reversing the decision. 86.145.141.55 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, and I still don't see any reliable sources directly identified here, perhaps this is an issue for the DRS or Hawkeye articles rather than about the lbw article. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Hawkeye is regarded as having an error and as a result..." The half-ball allowance and the imperfect nature of Hawkeye are not particularly related, so the citations needed do not exist. Even if Hawkeye were so accurate that it didn't need discussing, the half-ball allowance would still pertain. It is there to protect the primacy of the Umpire's judgement and the principle of benefit of doubt to the batsman. If Hawkeye shows that the ball would have just clipped the stump but the Umpire has given it Not Out he is not to be gainsaid, and his decision is correct! In such a case the batsman has always had the benefit of doubt, and good umpires have always supported them in that principle. See the existing citations. It would be good to have access to more source material about the social processes in world cricket administration that have got us here, but they probably don't exist. I for one am happy that we retain the principle that the batsman isn't out because a human umpire is rightly uncertain, for at least three reasons: a) the principles in use in cricket should be largely the same whether played at Test level or in the park, b) batting is hard enough anyway, whatever Angus Fraser and his pals may write, and as the article already cites, DRS wasn't supposed to change the nature of the game and c) umpiring is hard too, and will and should always be needed. By the way, for the reasons stated it's difficult to offload this discussion from the main LBW section Atconsul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Main page summary

The WP Front Page has "...and wrong lbw decisions have sometimes caused crowd trouble." For some reason the word "wrong" has been added, which is not in the article. In the context in which the rules are not fully understood, a correct lbw could equally have the same effect. Of course, this textual matter won't matter after today. Davidships (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the main page summary, I'd point out that the word "wrong" was in the article when I scheduled it for today's Ashes-appropriate appearance. It was removed some time later. I'll update the TFA blurb accordingly. Bencherlite^Talk 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my fault! Sorry about that, I forgot to update the blurb. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Bencherlite^Talk 13:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both Davidships (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hits batsman outside leg on full toss?

The article mentions that (a) the batsman is not out if the ball pitches outside leg and (b) if it strikes the batsman outside off and he or she wasn't offering a stroke. Fine. But what if it strikes the batsman outside leg , without pitching (I.e. on a full toss). One could infer that since neither of the mentioned exceptions are satisfied, it is out. But is that so? I genuinely don t know and It would satisfy my curiosity if the article covered that aspect t...  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been had earlier on the page in the "definition" section. Basically, it was thought that to specifically mention this would make the article clunky, and that the ball striking the batsman was considered the ball "pitching". To answer the question directly, it would be not out. Harrias ^talk 06:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bat as appendage

From the lead: "intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat. "

The bat is not part of the striker's person. This should be clarified to reflect that the gloves on hands holding the bat are the only part of the batsman on which they can be hit to prevent being correctly given out. I would change it but I can't think of how to write this concisely. Hack (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording in the Laws of cricket would cover the point. The words are (slightly altered to avoid copyvio) that the ball must strike, "... the batsman's person, cothing or equipment but not the bat or a hand holding the bat.". The hand holding the bat is considered to include a glove. The hand is also considered to only extend as far as the wrist. 86.145.241.183 (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Law 6 was changed a few years ago to suggest any part of a glove worn on a hand holding the bat was the same as striking the ball with a bat. Hack (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is clear enough in the main body, but I've reworded the lead a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leg before wicket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212233339/http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws-in-action/law-36-in-action/ to http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws-in-action/law-36-in-action/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The usage of capitalization in regards to LBW

Common usage of the LBW rule is to capitalize when referring to the rule, but when referring to scorecard it is not capitalized and reads as lbw. If the discussion is about how many lbws in a game, for example. But most media refers to the rule by the acronym LBW. When writing it out, should it also be capitalized as Leg Before Wicket as is normal with writing out acronyms?

See:

• https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=614&ei=0WXqWovAA4P48QWNiJOQAg&q=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw+rule&oq=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw+rule&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10172.11212.0.11488.5.5.0.0.0.0.228.906.2-4.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.cslU1Fe7Y5s

vs.

• https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=614&ei=NGjqWpSxONTM8wXxmZjYDA&q=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw&oq=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.4860.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.FHvhD4G7vgU

Brett Johnston (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

From memory, I don't think it's usual to capitalise it when written out in full. I don't think it's worth worrying about too much, though. JH (talk page) 07:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)