From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:46:18 GMT

dlow@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au.ua.oz (David J Low) writes:

>     A succinct summary (or "umpire's guide to the LBW :-) ) was posted a
>     few months ago - I've found it very useful for adjudicating:

This is WRONG!!!!  See correction below!!

>     1) did the ball pitch outside leg stump?  If YES then NOTOUT, else 2)

>     2) did the ball pitch outside off stump?  If YES then (i), else 3)
>	   (i) did the batsman play a shot?  If YES then NOTOUT else 3)

>     3) would the ball have hit the stumps?  If YES then OUT else NOTOUT.

Rule 2 is incorrect.  For example if the ball pitched outside the off,
but HIT the batsman in front, he is OUT EVEN IF HE PLAYED A SHOT.  By
the above rules, he would be given not out.

So rule 2 should read

2) did the ball HIT THE BATSMAN outside offstump?  If YES then (1) else 3) 
       (i) did the batsman play a shot?  If YES then NOTOUT else 3)

>	  This is arranged in the most useful way for thinking about the
>	  decision!  So, there is no reason why you can't get out to a
>	  legbreak (like I did in last season's semi final :-{ ) as long as
>	  the ball pitches in line and would have hit the stumps if your
>	  (my!) bloody pad hadn't got in the way.  For the record, I _was_

True, but it would have to be turning quite slowly, else there would
be sufficient doubt in the umpire's mind about either where it pitched
or whether it would hit the stumps.  The presence of the doubt (that
it would have hit or did in fact pitch in line is in some sense
irrelevant) is sufficient to cause the umpire to rule not out in
almost all cases.

>	  trying to use the bat :-), I was just too far back, and the ball
>	  would have taken the top of off stump.

I personally use the "no more than one possible source of doubt"
hypothesis:-) while umpiring.

To illustrate, if the batsman is forward and the ball is cutting in
sharply and hits his front foot on off stump, even if I was sure that
the ball would have hit the stumps, I would tend to give him not out.
The point is that there are two factors here causing doubt -- (a) the
ball was cutting and I could have misread the cut and (b) the fact
that he was forward gives much more room for error (a slight
misjudgement of 2-3 degress would be the difference between the ball
hitting or missing the stumps).  So, if either the ball were going
pretty much straight through OR had the point of impact been at the
crease rather than a yard down (with the ball cutting in), then I
would make my decision based on my opinion of where the ball would go.
But in the original scenario, I feel there are too many doubtful
factors for me to be 100% sure in my judgement, and so I almost must
declare him not out...

This may not be an official interpretation of "benifit of the doubt",
but I have used it successfully and to my own satisfaction.  Perhps
Murali whose son comes from an illustrious umpiring lineage can
comment:-) 

>		  David (with thanks to the original poster of this system!)

                  [umm.... more like the batsmen who have been
                   the benifit of this system that gives them an
                   undue advantage should join in the thanks:-]

Bharat