Time to change the Leg Before Wicket (LBW) rule? Evolution of LBW in cricket explained

[@OLDg_Vids]

*"Pads are there to save the batsmen from injuries, not from dismissals!"* I really do agree with that...

[@saheebraj9987]

But We also can't give full acces to Bowlers by Discarding , Impact and pitching Otherwise it will became more like Archery to hit the pad Bowler have to just hit the pad and take the wicket If Batsman misses

[@AyushSingh-nd2iw]

We r not talking about pads here we are talking about that a Batsman should be out if he put his legs in front of wickets trying to stop the ball from hitting them

[@muslim2k]

@@saheebraj9987 as it should be

[@nottsoserious]

Pujara's entire technique against spin: gone

[@SouravKumar-cy2it]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@initiated1369]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@paritoshshah4968]

He won't be able to play 900 balls per seires

[@manandhiman1010]

Just 34k. Talent is disrespected everywhere! 😓

[@TheCricketDigest]

Kindly help us to grow by sharing our videos with your friends.

[@manandhiman1010]

@@TheCricketDigest Sure!

[@omkartiwari1136]

Definitely bro your videos are truly helpful.

[@amandeepsingh2578]

49k

[@sarcasmassylum2766]

Bro subscribers to badha dunga lekin party doge na😋😁

[@shreyasbhat5991]

This is the only channel where I don't skip adds. My contribution to this channel .

[@TheCricketDigest]

Thank you very much for your kind gesture!

[@Hemant13832]

@@TheCricketDigest skip is beneficial or not for you?

[@TheCricketDigest]

@@Hemant13832 skip won't help us. Do watch the entire ad if time permits.

[@Hemant13832]

@@TheCricketDigest ohh! My earlier thinking was that you get benefit when we skips ad.

[@TheCricketDigest]

@@Hemant13832 Good that you asked us. Now you know what to do :D

[@terabaap6078]

Best cricket knowledge channel on KZbin. ❤️

[@johnsexton8759]

Not if it calls the Laws of Cricket as rules

[@TheCricketDigest]

Well, we are a team of professional umpires. Of course we know that they are called as laws! But our sole intention of making these videos is to simplify the law book, so that a layman can understand the game well. Specially Indian cricket fans are not aware of the 'LAW' term, they mostly use the word 'rule'. If these videos were made for the umpires, we would have definitely used the word 'LAW', not 'rule'.

[@lardyify]

I don’t trust, and I don’t see how umpires can trust, the animation that everyone relies on to get the result. Whether it is computer generated using science and ballistic theory, or someone’s best guess, it is still an animation and not the actual trajectory of the ball.

[@sesha-d5b]

TCD does an amazing job on youtube. Like I was able to understand every video completely! The way of explaining things is awesome guys.

[@sachinsinghania1244]

Even low scoring games which are highly competitive can be a great treat to watch. Take a look at the ICC 2019 World Cup finals, there were moments which will stay with every cricket fan forever or be it the ICC 2013 Champions Trophy where England were chasing a low score against a good Indian Bowling attack and it went down to the wire. But having said that, we must limit the size of the bats even more and bring back the concept of 1 ball in ODIs to assist the bowlers with reverse swing and added spin (need to check if this is still the case) A great video mate! Looking forward to more :)

[@CAMridul]

I think IMPACT can be removed....but PITCHING cannot be removed because if ball pitches outside leg it is the blindspot of batsmen...making it difficult for him to see...(bowlers will take advantage of this)

[@TheCricketDigest]

Right, valid point. But there are counters that all the games have blind-spots but only in cricket the batsmen get away with this.

[@HOF1932]

@@TheCricketDigest What if 4th stump is introduced to solve the issue.

[@amiteshrohi1070]

Yes your opinion is right. I agree with you. I want also only impact decision is removed but not the pitching decision.

[@TheCricketDigest]

interesting perspective!

[@davidwillis7991]

@@TheCricketDigest I think they should do something more subtle. remove pitching requirements for balls delivered from outside off stump. That way a bowler skillful enough to spin or swing it back from outside leg is an lbw threat but those who start outside leg aren't.

[@Nijapraju]

In my opinion, the pitching rule must stay and impact rule must be ignored. This will allow the bowlers to swing/spin the bowl from different angles rather than bowling in a straight line. I have seen many outstanding deliveries that deserved a wicket being turned down due to impact off-line.

[@BatMan-xr8gg]

That is a fair comment. As an Umpire in Grade Cricket, I would prefer it that ball is hitting the stumps and the impact point is the one to use. If a bowler can pitch the ball outside the off stump but swings back in and hits the batsman in front of the wickets, and the ball would obviously be hitting the wickets, then it can be given out. Same as if the bowler goes around the wicket and swings the ball in and it hits the pads, and it is going on hit the stumps then that is out. But I do not like this Umpires call. The whole ball must be hitting the pads in front of the stumps. That would make my life easier. Not easy Umpiring when a Fast Left Armer is on, because by the time I get my eyes up from watching his front foot, I have missed if it is outside leg or inside leg. For me, all I should be looking at is that the ball is hitting the stumps. And as A captain once told me after getting out LBW, hey son, why don't you use your bat to hit the ball. Cheers

[@Nijapraju]

@@BatMan-xr8gg Thanks for sharing your views 🤗. I know umpiring is not an easy job at all. Its really hard to keep cool and decide whether to give out/not when all the players are appealing, especially the umpires call. It all happens in a fraction of time. I do have a lot of respect for the umpires. But we must make sure that the rules/laws are not taken for granted or misused.

[@BatMan-xr8gg]

@@Nijapraju Totally agree with you. And yeah, when the players are in your face appealing and you don't have DRS, I am going to upset either side with my decision. I actually retired after last season due to the abuse I got from then players if they did not like my decision. Cheers mate.

[@saheebraj9987]

But I think Both have to stay but remove Umpire's call from Both pitching and impact It really doesn't matter That ball pitched 10 Percent in line or 100 If u Are watching that ball is clearly hitting whole to the stump then Why U will give not out just b coz Umpire's call U will ignore the Whole hitting of the Ball

[@skp2559]

@@saheebraj9987 sir technology is not 100% accurate hence benifit of doubt is given based on Umpire call... Law makers are not that dumb these days

[@JB-iu6dj]

Cant be changed due to the one constant, that player will exploit any change. We already have players like Pujara constantly tucking the bat behind the pad to off spinners exploiting the fact umpires are reluctant to call it ‘no shot played’ and guess if the ball is hitting the stump for fear of being proven wrong on DRS. Where you totally went wrong is listening to anything Ian Chappell has to say. The guy just likes the sound of his own voice. If you took out the pitching and in line rules you would have every right arm bowler coming around the wicket as wide as possible trying to spear the ball into the pads from the leg side and captains stacking the leg side with fielders. It would completely ruin cricket. The LBW rules are fine as is.

[@tbp33911]

If the pitching rule is changed, all bowlers will have to do is bowl from the batsman's leg side and target the pads. This will be horribly easy to generate LBWs, to the point where it'll be very one-sided especially in test cricket. The impact rule can easily be changed though

[@TheCricketDigest]

Totally agree with your point.

[@thecurious926]

Yeah. Imagine Shane warne from round the wicket.

[@belligerentapj3685]

@mangothing Pace of DRS and methods used has nothing to do with laws.. And it's not under the wish of any1.. That depends on technology.. When technology isn't precise, an umpire has to take time to arrive at the correct decision at ultra close calls

[@princenarayana]

Then can just remove impact rule. The idea behind pitching in line or off is due to batsman can't sight the release of ball properly over the shoulder if it is pitching outside. So we should stick with that

[@vladtepes97]

it's very one-sided now. if batsmen are afraid the bowlers will aim at their pads from the legside, the batsmen are free to step further to a 4th or 5th legside stump, as they do with the 4th or 5th offside stump line to reach wide balls. bowlers have had to make adjustments in order to survive. it's time batsmen had to make adjustments to survive too.

[@Dr_strange_2652]

Many things learned by your channel no unnecessary introduction just main info Keep up this

[@JustAdelaideRacing]

Honestly, that’s the clearest explanation of the ‘pitching’ and ‘impact’ rules I’ve ever seen.

[@kirankumarks2614]

yes ,i also agree with ian chappel..... remember the ball of the centuary by warne which pitched outside the wide line then hits the wicket, isn't out ! yes it is out. similarly the lbw should also consider........

[@yashudaultani5813]

Both pitching and impact rule must be removed because if the leg hadn't come before the wicket, then ball either pitching outside leg or outside off might have gone to hit the stumps.

[@junaidaj7450]

Best is that if ball touches to the batsman's leg then it should be dot ball even if ball goes for four or six through pads. Coz pads should not be used to score runs so if batsman used made any runs then it should not be counted.

[@junaidaj7450]

Also u r correct

[@sanupvaidya]

@@junaidaj7450 this may not be implemented, since running without hitting anything (bye) will also then have to be ruled out.

[@princenarayana]

Then can just remove impact rule. The idea behind pitching in line or off is due to batsman can't sight the release of ball properly over the shoulder if it is pitching outside. So we should stick with that

[@dalesteyn5687]

@@princenarayana what are you talking??..that means you are favouring t the batsmen!!...think once of the bowlers, How much restrictions they have!!

[@SillyTubereal]

I don't agree that the current lbw rules favor the batsmen, lbw existing at all is in bowler's favor. Batsmen should have every right to protect their wicket not just with their bats but also with their bodies. But I also understand the bowlers' frustration if batsmen just keep blocking the ball with their legs instead of the bat, because it's a bat and ball game after all, not ball and leg game. So the current lbw rules are fine, getting rid of either pitching or impact or both will just give the bowlers' too much advantage.

[@koppolusreekanth8866]

I'm Agree With Ian Chapell....T20 Cricket Has Much Fun But It Make Everyone Bats Ease

[@Taiakun]

I don't think impact should be taken out, since it would be very difficult for umpires to judge whether the ball would hit the stumps. There is almost no way to judge since you would need to consider the angle of the ball off the pitch AND height from a single perspective when it is hard enough to do with two cameras. You would get a lot more appeals from bowlers and may possibly have to go to DRS a lot more. However, I do think the pitch of the ball should not be considered. It should not matter whether the ball lands outside off or legside if it impacts the batsman in front of the stumps and is obviously straightening or going on to hit the stumps. If batsmen can score runs off such deliveries, then the bowler should be able to get wickets off them if it was going to hit the stumps and the batsman missed.

[@suhail_69]

Agree. And also whether the batsman tried to play a stroke or not should not matter. That rule also needs to be revised I feel.

[@martinbennett2228]

With this rule, I think bowlers would bowl from around the wicket much more targeting the batsman[s legs and batsmen would counter this by taking a more leg side stance. From the spectator point of view more bowled dismissals would be a positive, but more LBW dismissals would not.

[@nakulghate9448]

Rule out this impact and pitching thing already. Now is the time. I am in favor of If the ball hits the stumps its out. Great video friend🥂

[@sujaymulagund299]

Bro in an innings more than 10 times batsmen get lbw. Then the match will get over very soon.

[@nakulghate9448]

@@sujaymulagund299 so what?

[@sujaymulagund299]

@@nakulghate9448 so what meaning??

[@sujaymulagund299]

@@nakulghate9448 it's commercial importance will be reduced

[@sujaymulagund299]

@@nakulghate9448 no one will watch cricket then

[@swapnilthorat4648]

For a couple of years game will be more cautious and same but with this modern fit athletes and techniques batsmen's will adapt the change and will further evolve batting qualities. Game should always evolve and shouldn't be same for centuries and Changing LBW in favour of bowler should start the trade and honestly real fans doesn't want to see bowlers getting bashed day in and day out they want to see competition between bat and ball. And this decision will definitely increase the competition and technique of batting.

[@princenarayana]

Then can just remove impact rule. The idea behind pitching in line or off is due to batsman can't sight the release of ball properly if it is pitching outside. So we should stick with that

[@zeesh1996]

You guys are best in understanding cricket more than anyone I hear of. marvellous!!

[@robertblak5790]

It will be audience friendly, because bowlers will get the respect they deserve. Which they get only in test matches

[@rohanMJ]

In fact, pitching rule is there for a reason. For a batsman there are fewer shots available to play on the leg side like pull, sweep, glance and flick. Bowlers used to ball from the round the wicket in line with the body of batsman and placed fielders behind the wicket such as fine leg or square of the wicket. So there were 2 rules imposed one is only 2 fielders allowed behind the stumps and pitching outside leg is no more valid to appeal for lbw.

[@solomonbailey6427]

Then we have the same conversation 50 years later Coming from an umpire the lbw rule as it is now I think is the best it can be. If you take out impact then decisions become more controversial especially in local cricket because it is hard to tell a lot of the time when the impact is outside the line if it is truly going to hit the stumps

[@stephenandrews5782]

are you kidding it gives the umpire 1 decision to make rather than 3 (ball hitting stumps impact in line and ball pitching)

[@anonymouslyopinionated656]

another factor with the pitching & impact rules were that they made lbw decisions regarding whether it would have hit the stumps, more reliable.. by reducing chance of human error. however, with the ball-tracking technology we use now, this aspect is no longer necessary. further, i don't think it will slow the game too much.. maybe only in the short term... a defensive stroke using the bat is still much better than a defensive padding. the slight dip in runs will be compensated by more exciting dismissals, particularly in T20, where aggression will not stop.

[@VarunMSrinivasa]

I think in test cricket especially, batters use their pads a lot more than they should. While it is true that umpires give more LBW decisions now after DRS than they used to before, batters can still get away with using their pads against potentially wicket-taking deliveries; the way Pujara played Nathan Lyon in the recently concluded Ind vs Australia series highlights that.

[@blazegrabowski7344]

I definitely think that bowlers would target the stumps from bowling wide of the crease, it’s definitely harder to defend from that angle

[@jasperj4092]

1.Pitching Outside Off stump and Leg Stump shall be regarded as batsman not offering a shot. 2. Impact outside the line of Off Stump and Leg stump shall be disregarded.

[@RanjitKumar-tv1ok]

Best youtube channel for cricket knowledge.

[@hoagy_ytfc]

I think the main problem with changing the inline part of it is that it makes it harder for umpires. Under the current rules, the "straightening up" that's required for most LBWs makes it a _bit_ easier for them. Obviously, most games don't have DRS. I'm not against it as such, but I think this is a factor to take into account.

[@mohsinmrrz]

This was explained very nicely. I don't think there is a better explanation of lbw history and laws on KZbin.

[@timleete471]

as long as pitching outside leg still stops LBW. otherwise there will be heaps of negative round the wicket, angles in, legside bowling.

[@Agent117Smith]

I’d say it should be pitching outside leg and offering a shot stops lbw. Some protection for the batter but gets rid of them just padding up to spin bowling

[@timleete471]

@@Agent117Smith yea, fair kinda, i think id trial it. could get pretty bad though someone express round the wiicket, because you basicaly have to commit to playing of your pads, and if its short your so far out of position your gunna get hit alot. could become a negative tactic. but yea, try those 2. see how it effects the game and move fowards on is fair.

[@nigelchristensen7001]

Maybe make some smaller changes first. So for example adjust the Leg side LBW rule. e.g. A batsman can be given LBW if the ball pitches outside leg stump if the batsman does not play a shot, the ball impacts the batsman in line with the stumps and would then go on to hit the stumps. This is designed to remove the boring padding away to anything pitched outside leg stump.

[@alansizer2006]

Make it so that: 1) if the batsman doesn't offer a stroke, he's fair game regardless of where the ball pitches. Define offering a stroke more clearly so that feigning a block where the bat remains behind the pads does not count; and 2) Where a shot is offered, LBW is off the table only if it pitches outside leg.

[@suhail_69]

Agree but why is "batsmen offering a stroke" so important. Rules are batsmen friendly unfortunately. Isn't it more fair when batsmen offered the stroke and still got beaten and hit the pad - that's where the bowler defeated batsmen and that wicket would make more sense I feel.

[@BB-kh1mx]

Current LBW rule is absolutely fine, both batsman and bowler developed their technique based on these rules, any change could make huge impact and it favours hugely the bowlers To bring contest berween the biwler and batsman, nake changes to the pitches not the rules

[@manankhambhata3739]

1) we can do away with impact outside off rule. However, the rules for pitching and impact outside leg should remain as it will stop bowlers from bowling negative line 2) Umpire's call should be removed. If it hits, its out, if it doesnt hit, it shouldn't. Yes, the umpire's call is there to give benefit of the doubt to the umpire as ball tracking is not foolproof or 100% accurate (it has improved over the years) but still it should remove the effect of umpire's call

[@prathmesh.gaikwad_]

I think pitching rule is good because it will restrict the bowler's bowling negative line. And if batsman is using his feet getting stride forward its good rather than getting caught in the crease, batsman is showing his technique, intent in swinging and seaming conditions so impact rule is good. But if ball is hitting the stumps even 10% as per hawk eye whatever the umpires call may be he sould be given out. That's the only change i recommend for LBW. Very informative video about evolution of lbw.

[@abhilashupadhya]

"Negative line" is subjective. With the suggested changes, that can no longer be negative.

[@radhakrishnamohanty3807]

In that case, balls should be declared wide if it's not touching stumps when batsman missed the ball.

[@realfan963]

Its exactly what i thought. Bad logic !!

[@akshaychhabra908]

This will majorly impact test cricket and I feel.test cricket is already is bowler friendly nowadays..considering there were only 3 centuries in ind vs aus test series. The pitches are with a lot more spice and bite in tests nowadays. The ammendment is only required in drs where the umpire's call shouldn't be there in lbw case.

[@araucariapasquale1]

Your videos are very well put together.

[@wunnell]

Given the way batsman can and do play today, I'd seriously look at the rule that the ball cannot pitch outside leg stump. I guess the problem is that bowlers might stack the leg side and bowl outside leg stump continually. If the bowler stacked the off side and bowled outside off then most batsmen could still hit to leg. Even with reverse sweeps and switch hits, the reverse is not nearly as true. I think I just talked myself out of that one. I definitely think that umpire's should be much more strict in their interpretation of what constitutes playing a shot. I recall a series between England and India that was in England (I think, although I could be wrong) when Ashwin should have been out LBW several times but wasn't because he was outside the line and adjudged to be playing a shot when he clearly wasn't. I also think that the third umpire should be able to overrule the on-field umpire regarding whether or not the batsman was playing a shot if it is obvious that they got it wrong. With regards to changing the law to allow LBWs when the batsman is not struck in line, I don't think that most people have thought that through. I'm not necessarily against it but there's no way that law should be changed with out actual research being conducted to see how many extra dismissals there would be as a result. Particularly on turning tracks, where batsmen get struck on the pad by spinners a lot, Test matches could be over in a day or two and batting last could be all but impossible. How many times have we seen LBW shouts nearly every ball in a fourth innings and most of those would be out if the bowler knew he just had to target the stumps every ball. It would also mean more outside edges as the batsman concentrated on defending his pads as well as his stumps. I'm all for an even contest between bat and ball but, especially in certain conditions, I suspect that that change would swing things much too far in favour of the ball. I think there are better ways to give bowlers a better chance in limited-overs cricket.

[@neerajadwani4433]

Nice going lokesh bhaiya.. Going good in Quarantine!! Keep it up.

[@rathinkothiyal9761]

I don't have a view on the rule, but this was explained very nicely. Thank you!

[@Pett85]

Law! :)

[@AkashKeserwani]

I think current LBW rule is good as is. We just need to move out Umpires's call, If it is hitting stumps either 10% or 90%, give it out.

[@TheCricketDigest]

You need to watch the below video to understand the working of DRS technology and why umpire's call exists in cricket. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2S0XmWNlriXgs0

[@AkashKeserwani]

@@TheCricketDigest Being a programmer myself I know what this video's says but still I will uphold technology over human eyes. Technology is there will less than 1 percentage chance of failure . The problem with Umpires call is that even if umpire has a little bit bias towards one team that can result into few umpire call going against one team in a game. I can give example of Ind vs NZ semifinal game last year where around 4 umpire call decision went against India.

[@TheCricketDigest]

As we have explained in the video, current umpire's call is eliminating the howler and also shielding the system from technology error. Isn't it a best combination? And there are a lot time where India has been advantaged due to umpire's call. Not to forget, ICC tournaments will have neutral umpires. Terming neutral umpire's as biased isn't fair.

[@AkashKeserwani]

@@TheCricketDigest I am not calling umpire biased but a hint of bias can be there even in neutral umpire but not in technology. It is human nature. Well I don't want to carry on with this discussion so Good luck.

[@sairam7669]

In test cricket it shouldn’t be changed. Its pretty fair especially when pitches are more equal. In odi and t20 its not a bad idea.

[@wunnell]

I'm not a fan of having different LBW rules in the different types of cricket. I fear that it might affect the standard of umpiring, which is already a very difficult job when it comes to LBW decisions. I think that there are better ways to even up the contest in limited-overs cricket.

[@sairam7669]

@@wunnell I honestly don’t think it should be changed either. I think its honestly fair these days. The advent of t20 game has tended to change things in the players themselves. Think people should concentrate more on player development as well instead of rules. I already do think lbw decisions are on point. Nobody deliberate pads in odis or t20s

[@wunnell]

@@sairam7669 , one thing I don't think that a lot of people consider is that it doesn't really matter that average scores go up as long as average wickets lost stays about the same. We just have to recalibrate our thinking regarding what figures constitute a good bowler. If it used to be that a good bowler went at 4 an over and a bad bowler went at 6 an over but now a good bowler goes at 6 and a bad bowler goes at 8 then so be it. If 5 an over used to be the average then a fair game was one that went at about 5 an over and if the average now is 7 an over then a fair game is one that goes at about 7 am over. That's just the way it is. If it used to be that teams lost an average of 7 wickets per game and now the average was 3 or something like that then that would be an issue but that's not the way it is, as far as I'm aware. Good bowlers are still taking wickets, even if it's because batsmen are taking more risks. It only becomes an issue if and when average scores get so high that even bad teams are scoring so many runs that good teams are unable distinguish themselves because it's just not possible to score more runs.

[@Desidude1000]

The silliest thing is "Impact is the umpire's call." Either the ball would have hit the stump of it would not. If Umpire could not imagine ball hitting the stump in real time trajectory, that should not change the verdict.

[@priyansh1210]

ikr...that's so weird

[@wunnell]

Like so many people, you don't understand how DRS works. I will explain. Firstly, the point of DRS is not to determine whether the batsman was out or not. It is to determine whether the umpire made a mistake or not when making their decision. It's much like when you appeal a verdict in a court case you are not getting a whole new trial but rather they examine the case to see whether a mistake was made. You could argue that the point of DRS should be to determine whether the batsman is out or not but that is an argument in itself and, currently, that is not the case so you need to judge DRS based on what it is intended to do, not what you think it should do. Secondly, ball-tracking is not 100% accurate and the predicted path - that between the actual impact with the pad and the predicted impact with the stumps, is even less accurate. The "umpire's call" element of DRS is an acknowledgement of that. You say: *"Either the ball would have hit the stump of it would not."* and you are absolutely right about that. The problem is that the predicted path shown by ball-tracking is not necessarily the path the ball would have taken. In fact, the further the batsman is from the stumps when he's hit, the less confidence we can have in that predicted path. That is why ball-tracking cannot be used to overturn a decision when the batsman is struck (I think) more than 3.5 metres from the stumps. If the predicted path shows the ball just clipping the stumps, we actually cannot know for sure whether the ball actually would have missed altogether or more of the ball would have hit the stumps. Because of this uncertainty, ball-tracking showing the ball just clipping the stumps is not considered conclusive evidence that the umpire was wrong and so their on-field decision stands. In actual fact, the "umpire's call" rule is a very simplistic allowance for the margin of error in ball-tracking. A rigorous implementation would be much more complex but, given the number of people who have trouble understanding the current system, such an implementation simply wouldn't be widely accepted. It is also worth remembering that the path actually measured by ball-tracking is less prone to error than the predicted path, because we have actual data for that trajectory. That means that we can be more confident about where the ball pitched and where the batsman was struck than we can about where the ball would have hit the stumps. The fact that we use the same "umpire's call" rule on all three is another nod to simplicity and the fact that so many people, commentators and players included, just don't get it.

[@TheCricketDigest]

Very explained mate.

[@TheCricketDigest]

We have made two videos to explain the umpire's call topic but it is sad that people don't go and look out for it. They do watch only what comes to their feed! You can watch it here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2S0XmWNlriXgs0

[@wunnell]

@@TheCricketDigest , unfortunately, I don't think that many of the TV commentators in any country understand exactly how DRS works in this regard either, and many spectators take their lead from them.

[@srikantapanda2456]

In my opinion pitching constraints must be there but impact thing can be elemenated

[@TheCricketDigest]

Makes sense.

[@tanmaygoyal5000]

In my opinion, 'impact in line' should still be a criterion to decide an LBW dismissal. But I agree that 'pitching' shouldn't be considered.

[@HOF1932]

Considering Pitching is already eliminating bowlers Reverse Swing/In swinger/leg cutter capabilities. if bowlers pitches way off side, but he capable to move the ball towards stumps and hits the pad, the batsmen is NOTOUT

[@rohanp56]

Whether the ball is pitched on/outside leg or off it doesn't matter, whether the impact is within the stumps should so if someone like Shane Warne is bowling outside leg but impact is on the stumps batsman is out.

[@mharoonahmed]

Before the LBW rule, I want the leg bye rule to be gone first .... Why the hell there should be a run when batsman was unable hit the ball with bat ? It's in bowlers credit that he deceived the batsman ..

[@bikaskumarkundu2638]

Ian Chappell said it right. Cricket has become more T20 concentrated these days

[@ReubenSilveira6]

I think I would make one change. It shouldn't be a problem if the ball pitches outside leg, as long as the impact is in line.

[@learnlife7651]

Like mentioned in the video, the rule could reduce the commercial value of the game when it comes to T20 & ODI. But it would have the opposite effect on Test since a result will more or less be guaranteed.

[@wunnell]

Possibly guaranteed within a day on spinning tracks.

[@tanmay-bhat96]

+1 for the effort 👌

[@tocaracer8066]

definitely one solution but I worry how this will affect leg pad targeting from bowlers. Targeting the leg pads could be the new intimidation factor ( the new bouncer). How will rural cricket be affected by this rule? Another limitation of lbw drs system I saw was in the 2021 sl vs eng series on day 3, 1st test match. bowler bowled off spin to left hander. It hit his toe on the full between middle and off the on field umpire gave it out because he believed the ball would have turned on the slow surface to hit middle and leg but the batsman reviewed it and ball tracker assumed no off spin and therefore showed it missing leg completely and overturned the decision. I was astonished the batsman had gotten away with that. Therefore I encourage you to make a piece about the limitations of drs tools like ball tracker. Great vid anyway.

[@davidwillis7991]

that's not the limitations of ball tracking, that's the rules (and as long as you're bowling from close to the stumps it helps spinners more than it hinders) A ball that hits the batsman on the full is assumed to continue along that path

[@shaktawatprashant11]

Some time it is very difficult to save wickets on fast pitch. Therefore present rules are good enough to save batsman.

[@ayushrajput1203]

Even if they don't want to remove pitching rule still they can easily remove impact in line rule.. now a days game is only batsmen friendly.. this is very bad.. but anyways it's not a game anymore it's business so anyways.. my useless opinion..

[@gothicgolem2947]

It’s a game as well dood and I’ve watched lots of cricket it’s not batsman friendly they can get out from beautiful balls that’s almost if not impossible to stop and can get clocked by bawls on there body just my opinion but it’s more bowler friendly than batsman

[@abhishekmanchare1679]

Batsman friendly game is more interesting to watch

[@gothicgolem2947]

@@abhishekmanchare1679 i still dont see it as batsman friendly game at least in test matches

[@ritdhar6579]

@@gothicgolem2947 yes, the pitches are to blame

[@gothicgolem2947]

@@ritdhar6579 hmmmm idk there are some big bowler pitches and at least in test the bowlers always seem to have the advantage

[@julesr44]

From Ian Chapel has said the law should be would at least in ODI/T20 in bowlers pitching the ball regularly outside leg stump

[@nishantsahoo1886]

Impact outside off can still be considered.. but pitching and impact outside leg would make the game boring for sure

[@TheCricketDigest]

We are also of the same opinion. Batsmen may start playing very slowly if both impact and pitching factors are removed.

[@abhilashupadhya]

How will it make it boring? The batsmen is forced to play more, no?

[@amiteshrohi1070]

@@abhilashupadhya no bro. Players play very slow.

[@harikartik4993]

Ya they will start defending more and then T20 a high score will be 120 and ODI will be 150 in the whole quota of 20 and 50 overs respectively.... It will support the bowlers and batsmen will be on the pitier side!

[@vladtepes97]

low-scoring matches are infinitely more interesting and thrilling than high-scoring ones. saying a batsman is not out because the ball pitched outside leg removes a viable bowling weapon. it's because of unilateral laws like this that batsmen feel more confident playing the whole 360* oval while bowlers have to serve pies.

[@VinayakVidhyasagar]

Yes it will become bowler friendly and leg spinners will rule the game

[@macclepie1598]

I see Chappell’s point but I think the game is good how it is at the moment, some brilliant games being played. For example India vs Australia 2020/2021.

[@rock-mq6nk]

if pitching outside the leg was valid during Shane Warne era, He could have easily got 2k+ wickets.

[@hishamatcha9965]

That’s quite funny?

[@indiantrue1934]

I always feel lbw is most confusing dismissal with that impact and umpires call

[@johnsexton8759]

Easiest of all decisions because if you have any doubt it's Not Out

[@vladtepes97]

imagine if the no-shot-offered rule applied to other dismissals: 1. batsman offers no shot because the bowler fools him, but the ball hits his bat anyway and is caught = not out 2. batsman offers no shot because the bowler fools him, but the ball hits the stumps anyway = not out. 3. batsman offers no shot because the bowler fools him, but steps out of his ground and the keeper breaks the wicket with ball in hand = not out. 4. batsman offers no shot because the bowler fools him, but the ball would have hit the stumps if not for being intercepted by the batsman's body = not out.

[@rishitshah1267]

I think they should allow the bats in the 1990's only ,because these days the bat's are so powerful.

[@ajs41]

There's one mistake in this video: the most recent change to the law was in 1972 not 1980. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leg_before_wicket

[@Pavankumar-zl1gp]

if ball hitting wickets whether pitching outside or inside ,impact inside or outside it shud be considered out ..thats what i think to change lbw rule

[@madhusudanagarwal3857]

Changing the rules will most likely affect tests more and limited over games.

[@Saigal720]

Highly informative

[@TheCricketDigest]

Glad you liked it!

[@deepakpawde905]

Gr8 video as usual.

[@TheCricketDigest]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@murtazaali5387]

Deserves more views.

[@pritishbose6611]

even if a new law is made regarding lbw, umpires will still have doubts if the ball hits the batsman's pad at an angle. So don't think it will make too much of a difference.

[@karthik-ex4dm]

How about introducing a new kind of wicket! Whenever the impact is outside off and the batsmen is offering a shot but the ball hits the pad, the Batsmen is given a half of OUT(Something like strikes in baseball). So if that happens the second time, He is sent to pavilion.... (2 strikes and he is out)

[@TheCricketDigest]

Interesting insight.

[@ssivaramakrishnan]

i want to see this if the ball is going to hit the stumps in lbw it should be out

[@shubhammeena5177]

true whether shot offered or not doesn't matter.

[@jonsid6628]

Very interesting. Well done and thank you.

[@ankitbhattacharjee_iitkgp]

What I think about? LBW should not be given unless the batsman blocked the ball to hit the stumps. Yes the first ever rule of this dismissal. It was the best.

[@ژوندښکلیدي-ز4ل]

Happy to see you after a long time 😍😍😍

[@exessex3522]

The LBW law was intended to prevent batsmen from using their pads to stop the ball hitting their wicket. Batsmen had probably presumably been doing so deliberately and this law was to put an end to it. Why not just go back to that? If an umpire is certain the ball was on target and considers that the batsman deliberately guarded his wicket with his pads - OUT. If it was not 100% certain that the action was deliberate, then the umpire could warn the batsman not to do it again. This would encourage the batsman to always try to put bat to ball.

[@rkrao7194]

And Umpire’s call should be ignored when making decisions.

[@ssivaramakrishnan]

and delibarate padding sould be allowed but after the padding if it hits the stump its out

[@Kartik-xw7yt]

If 1st ball of the over goes for leg bye run and next all 5 balls goes for dot then whether the over considered as maiden or not for bowler ?

[@TheCricketDigest]

Maiden over.

[@DeepakRaj-zw6jj]

Here I agree with Ian Chappel, not about the LBW rule, but there should be some new rules in the favour of bowler.

[@TheCricketDigest]

Right, the bowlers need some breathing space right now!

[@kuldeep24690]

Batsman should be given ‘out’ when batsmen misses the shot or defends the shot by leg and hits the pad ,irrespective where it pitches and ball hitting the stumps.

[@mangotalwar4085]

Pitching outside leg should be same as pitching on offside. Because that's cause a big disadvantage to a leg spin bowler

[@devlinw4735]

you gotta keep the pitching outside leg rule though

[@vladtepes97]

why? why do we say perfect line and length only when a batsman is bowled while trying to play straight or into the offside? if the ball pitches outside leg and turns to hit the stumps, that sounds like perfect line to me.

[@GuptaAmit29]

How soft and attractive voice you are blessed with!

[@galaxyl1591]

Pitching outside leg should not be considered as outside leg stump balls are always bowled to hit batsmans body blow. It increases injury.Impact outside stump has to be considered for modifications of law. If a ball hit the stumps in its travel it should be out.

[@Jonno_B251]

Discarding where the ball pitches and hits the batsman will lead to negative bowling tactics. Bowlers will start coming around the wicket and cannoning the ball into batsmen’s pads from outside leg

[@diggler2002]

Could you please explain the rationale of the LBW rule? Why does it matter where the ball pitched and whether impact is in line with the stumps? Why not simplify the rule so it is just a question of whether the ball was going to hit the stumps? I can see that you want to encourage batters to play a stroke. Why not just say benefit of the doubt goes to a batter attempting a stroke?

[@TheCricketDigest]

Hope you have watched the entire video. We have explained why LBW was introduced to the game.

[@dhaneshbebo]

Here is the problem. Is the ball tracking accurate? What is its accuracy level? That is why I think pitching and impact becomes important

[@nacirdurrani]

The ball pitching outside the leg stump and if it is hitting wickets should be considered the same as the ball pitching outside off stump.

[@factbro2677]

Can anyone explain why isnt pitching outside leg isnt given as out

[@emilchandran546]

Imagine the game if the rules were changed. For one thing defending becomes so much harder and more important. Right now if you play a shot and miss but impact I outside the line you’re safe. This is often during sweep shots, trying to drive or block or even pull. If the rules change there is no incentive to come forward to the ball. You would be given out if you missed. Anytime you missed and the bowler was on target. Also leg side would become a slaughterhouse for batsmen. Right now leg-side is safe from lbw. Why? Because it is harder to defend against lbw on the leg side. Offside you can sweep, pull hook and drive the ball onto the leg side. There are very few shots to get a leg side ball onto the off side. There is really only the reverse sweep or ramp. Not very risky. One could also switch hit. But the laws say that changing hands changes leg side to off side and you can be given pit lbw. Not to mention that it is harder to move “backwards” to the leg side. Harder to step out to the leg side than to step in to the off side. This is why the leg side rule exists. Imagine a field, lots of men fairly close on the leg side. Bat pad, short quart leg, mid wicket and a close-ish mid on, fine leg. Maybe only point, mid off and a man in cover on off side. How hard it would be to score protect your wicket from leg-spin. Any time you miss the ball you could be out. Then imagine trying to score runs. Also, without DRS it would be impossible to umpire these laws. Seriously, appeals every time the ball hits pad. Both sides, whether shot is played or not. How many times would that be? Plus how is a volunteer umpire ever going to get the decisions right. Hard enough when the ball is impacting inline. There are reasons the laws are the way they are. Fix the pitches. Play more test cricket. It is still much more evenly matched, bat vs. ball. Idk maybe they could make smaller changes in T20 where the problem lies.

[@iftikharazad3417]

Fully agree with Ian Chappell.

[@alokparida7911]

Please,Brifley explain Cricket law.I don't found clear explanation about Cricket 42 law in KZbin. So, Make a video series

[@mohamedriyazudeen347]

When they introduced LBW in 1774 there is no ODI & T20.. Therefore we just need it only for test matches regardless of pitching & impact.. In ODI matches may be we can apply only for Powerplay2 (overs 11 to 40) especially when batsmen wants to defend... & No LBW requires for T20 matches

[@keiths81ca]

Have a T20 League where the ICC can experiment with potential and future rules to determine if work or not. As for the existence of the rule itself, yes it should be there. The batsman is to defend the wicket with their bat, not their legs. Safe haven codes go through periods where the offense is favored more than the defense and vice versa, so the fact that offense is favored now is not new.