The LBW (Leg Before Wicket) rule is one of cricket’s most fundamental and debated regulations, playing a pivotal role in the balance between bat and ball. It’s a difficult rule to understand, and before we get around to fully explaining the rule, we’re going to provide some backstory to the LBW rule, how it came to be and how it’s changed to become the strange rule that it is.
Understanding LBW: The Foundation of a Cricket Rule
Way back in the olden days, before I was born – hey, before even Australia was born – cricket did not have an LBW law. In 1744, when cricket’s first set of rules and laws were drawn up, the bat was curved, and cricket historians think this meant that the batter didn’t stand in front of the stumps to hit the ball. A LBW rule was rather pointless at that stage, because the L was never B the W.
However, when bats were adjusted to be straight, batters were able to get closer to the stumps, and began using their legs to stop the ball hitting the stumps.
This didn’t go down well, so the laws were adjusted in 1774. Now, a batter could be given out if the batter deliberately stopped the ball from hitting the stumps with his leg.
The operative word being ‘deliberately‘. The umpire had to determine the batter’s intent, that he was ‘deliberately’ stopping the ball with his leg.
And that didn’t go down well, either, as umpires found that batter’s intent was often a difficult thing to determine.
So, the law changed again in 1788. They scrapped the ‘intent’ part of the rule, and now the batter was out if they stopped a ball that was pitched straight. This changed again in 1823, when they added that the ball had to be delivered in a straight line to the wicket.
But from where? There was a cricket umpiring civil war (well, not really), because one lot of umpires said that the ball needed to travel from the bowler to the wicket in a straight line, while another lot of umpires said the ball needed to travel from the wicket to the other wicket in a straight line.
Finally, in 1839, it was decided that the second reasoning would be the one they would continue with; a batter would be out LBW if the ball pitched between the wickets and then would have gone on to his the stumps.
100 Years Later – The Rule Finally Changes Again
It would be nearly 100 hears before the LBW rule changed. During that time, because a batter could only be given out LBW if the ball pitches in line with the stumps, and then hits the pads in front of the stumps, many batsman used their pads instead of their bats for any ball that wasn’t bouncing in line with the stumps. Therefore, any spinner trying to spin the ball, would never get an LBW, and all the batter had to do was thrust out a leg and not risk using their bat for fear of getting an edge.
This produced dull cricket, with slow run rates. Don Bradman himself, in 1933, wrote to MCC requesting and advocating for a change to the LBW rule, to promote more interesting gameplay.
Thus, in 1937, a change to the LBW rule was brought into place. The ball could bounce outside the line of the stumps, and still be given out if it hit the pads in line with the stumps, and would still go on to hit the stumps.
Before this change LBW dismissals were fairly rare, but after the change, the rate of LBW dismissals increased dramatically.
But even so, batters, being the rule-bending lot that they are, managed to get around this rule too.
Since the ball had to hit the pads in line with the stumps, batters just plonked their front leg out towards the ball, outside the line of the stumps, to defend the ball.
This again produced boring cricket.
But finally, in 1980, the law was amended for the last time: if the ball pitches outside off, the batsman could be given out if the ball strikes their pad outside off if they don’t play a shot. This meant that batsman, when playing a defensive stroke, needed to lead with their bat, rather than their pads. This allowed for the possibility of catches and edges on to the pads to close in fielders.
The Current State of LBW in Today’s Cricket
So, what is the current law? There are three parts to the law.
First: the ball must not pitch outside leg stump. It can pitch outside off stomp.
Second: the ball must strike the batsman in line with the stumps, without the bat or glove hitting the ball first. Please note, that this doesn’t mean the ball must strike the batsman’s pads or legs, although, that is usually the case. Other than the gloves or the bat, the ball can strike any part of the batter’s body, even the head, and still be a contender for a LBW dismissal, assuming all other rules apply.
Also note, that if the batter is deemed not to have attempted a shot, this second rule no longer applies.
Third: the umpire must then think the ball will hit the stumps.
Caveats to the above law is that a batter can not be given out LBW if the bowler bowls a no ball, or, in limited over games, they are facing up to a ‘Free Hit’ ball (when a bowler bowls a no-ball in limited over cricket, the next ball is considered a ‘free hit’).
Modern technology has revolutionized the adjudication of LBW decisions, offering umpires access to advanced tools for accuracy and precision. The Decision Review System (DRS), in particular, has played a significant role in assisting umpires in making LBW decisions. By providing ball-tracking data and predictive trajectories, the DRS has reduced errors and increased confidence in LBW verdicts.
But the DRS technology is not perfect. It uses ball tracking to determine where the ball comes from, where it lands on the pitch, and where it strikes the batter in relation to the stumps, but from that point on, it must predict using technology where the ball will strike the stumps or miss them entirely.
Due to the possibility of error, to overturn the umpire’s decision, the predicted trajectory of the ball must show that more than 50% of the ball will miss the stumps to overturn an out decision, or more than 50% of the ball will hit the stumps to overturn a not-out decision.
This has lead to discussions about whether this is the right way to perform DRS reviews. People argue that since a ball can bowl a batter by merely clipping the stump by the barest fraction, the same should be the case when the predictive trajectory shows the ball clipping the stump.
Counter arguments argue that with DRS technology, there are still margins of error, and the current rules are suitable to overcome those margins.
This will be a debate that will probably go on for as long as commentators have breath and DRS review systems use predictive trajectory.
Future Trajectories: Anticipating Further Changes
As cricket continues to evolve, the LBW rule remains a focal point of discussion and debate among players, officials, and fans. Anticipating further changes to the LBW rule involves considering ongoing debates, the role of technology, and the delicate balance between tradition and innovation.
Technology is expected to play an increasingly significant role in future LBW adjustments, with advancements in ball-tracking systems and artificial intelligence shaping decision-making processes. The integration of real-time data analytics and predictive modelling may offer umpires enhanced insights into LBW appeals, reducing errors and improving consistency in decision-making. However, the implementation of technology-driven solutions must be accompanied by careful consideration of their impact on the traditional aspects of the game and the role of on-field umpires.
We don’t want to turn cricket into a game played by robots, umpired by robots, as above. Fundamentally, it is a human game where mistakes happen. Balancing tradition and innovation is essential in preserving the essence of cricket while embracing changes that enhance the sport’s competitiveness and appeal. As cricket evolves, maintaining a delicate equilibrium between upholding time-honored principles and embracing technological advancements is paramount. Any future changes to the LBW rule must be guided by a commitment to preserving the integrity, spirit, and intrinsic values of cricket, ensuring that the game continues to captivate audiences and inspire generations to come.
The LBW rules can be a confusing rule to those not used to it. It can be a confusing rule to those who are used to it, too. But the changing of the LBW rule shows how a simple change can alter the game in ways that are completely unexpected, and that cricketers will always try and gain every last bit of advantage to ensure they come out on top.
What is the funniest and oddest LBW you’ve ever experienced? Tell us in the comments below.