"Ben" <benoyu@gmail.com> wrote in message news:423e294a$0$29448$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...> Bowler: right arm, around the wicket> Batsman: right handed>
Ball:> 1) hits the pad on the full, in the line of outside leg-stump> 2) would have hit middle stump (probably on the full)>
No shot played, no bat, no glove> with other things being legal>
Should the batsman be out?
I would say no because the ball hit the pad in line outside the leg-stump.
"lt" <ltusenet_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3a6oqfF67ustpU1@individual.net...>
"Ben" <benoyu@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:423e294a$0$29448$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...> > Bowler: right arm, around the wicket> > Batsman: right handed> >
Ball:> > 1) hits the pad on the full, in the line of outside leg-stump> > 2) would have hit middle stump (probably on the full)> >
No shot played, no bat, no glove> > with other things being legal> >
Should the batsman be out?>
I would say no because the ball hit the pad in line outside the leg-stump.>
Ben, your question has a flaw the way you posed it.
You said, 1) ... "in the line of outside leg-stump"
There is either in the line or outside the line. In the line meaning any of the three stumps, ie, off, middle and leg. So, it pitched outside the line (outside the leg-stump in this case). We are talking about ball hitting the deck/pitch here, not a full toss ball.
That is a resounding NO. Law says, ball pitching outside the line of leg stump cannot be given out LBW. Period. It does not matter where the ball 'would have', 'could have' hit (off, middle or leg). So, question #2 becomes irrelevant.
Bowler: right arm, around the wicket>Batsman: right handed>
Ball:>1) hits the pad on the full, in the line of outside leg-stump>2) would have hit middle stump (probably on the full)>
No shot played, no bat, no glove>with other things being legal>
Should the batsman be out?
Not Out.
The point of impact is the disqualifier here. You have said that the point of impact was outside the line of leg stump, right?
Law 36.1 says in part:
"(d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat"
A point of impact outside the line of leg stump does not meet the criteria of either (i) or (ii).
The wording is awkward, I think it could be improved upon. I would rewrite paragraph (d) something like this:
"(d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
(i) is not outside the line of the leg stump
and (ii) if the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is not outside the line of the off stump"
