Post 4: Posted by Asjad Mir on Friday, Feb 29, 2008 at 15:15

In my humble opinion LBW is cricket's most complicated law. Some say, LBW dismissal is to cricket what the offside law is to football. I have been out LBW quite a few times over the years and it?s almost always a new experience. Without suggesting that the umpires amongst us need to understand the law better than they already do - you may find it to be an interesting read.

Post 3: Posted by Colin Wouldham on Sunday, Aug 05, 2007 at 09:47

Following the Footscray game, where umpire Fisher (P) decided to apply the LBW law in the manner in which it was intended, do we need to add an additional point?

7. Be prepared to tell the bowler yes, it would have hit the stumps, but it hit the batsman outside the line and the skipper was really playing a shot!

Post 2: Posted by Colin Wouldham on Wednesday, Aug 01, 2007 at 21:47

Where to start!

I think we're very quick to give them out. A bit more time taken to consider the vital points would be useful for all umpires:

1. Did the ball hit the batsman in line with the stumps? If yes, would the ball have hit the stumps? If yes again, give the batsman OUT.

2. If the ball git the batsman outside the line of off stump, was the batsman playing a shot? If yes, it's NOT OUT, whether the ball was going on to hit the stumps or not.

3. If the ball hit the batsman outside of off stump but the batsman wasn't playing a shot, and you think the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps, the batsman should be given OUT.

4. If the ball pitched outside leg stump, it's NOT OUT immediately

5. Always consider the height of the bounce when considering if the ball would hit the stumps or not!

6. If Wouldham is batting and it hits the pads, it's NOT OUT, obviously. Don't even think about it.

Post 1: Posted by Pete Fisher on Wednesday, Aug 01, 2007 at 20:59

Following my comments in the 'Old Pilotonians' match report, any comments regarding LBW decisions?