Talk:Leg before wicket

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

message: >> 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)
thread_title:  Playing no stroke to balls outside the off 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: '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)
thread_title: Semantics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Current definition is wrong?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, you are spot on and I have changed this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ball continuing in a straight line reference is wrong?

message: 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 -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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reference

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  lbw? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. BencherliteTalk 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my fault! Sorry about that, I forgot to update the blurb. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. BencherliteTalk 13:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks to you both  Davidships (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hits batsman outside leg on full toss? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bat as appendage 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The usage of capitalization in regards to LBW