Posted by The leg stump is the poor man’s stump. We think it’s time it got equal rights.
How often have you heard the following, or similar, after an LBW appeal is turned down:
“Hawk-Eye shows that would have just clipped leg, so that’s probably a fair decision.”
No it isn’t. If it’s hitting the stumps, it should have been given out. If it was just clipping the off stump, you’d say the batsman had got away with it.
It seems like Hawk-Eye needs to show the ball twatting right into leg stump, clipping middle, before a batsman’s really out. Bullshit.
We’ve heard that they keep leg stumps in a separate place in the groundsman’s shed; leg stump ghettoes where the roof leaks and it’s draughty.
Well said, KC!
Actually, this is part of a greater malaise – the cricket world’s distancing of itself from the actual words behind the initials LBW. Here’s how it should work:
“OK ump, do you think it hit the batsman’s leg first?”
“Yes”
“Right, in that case do you think, taking everything into account, on the basis of probablity, with no benefit of the doubt given to either side, that it would have hit the wickets?”
“Yes”
“So, if I can summarise, you think that the Leg was Before the Wicket.”
“I guess you can say that, yes.”
“Well old chap, go ahead and give the fucker out, then.”
Because, while I appreciate the humour in your Hawkeye hover caption, in actual fact it wouldn’t be out even to a left hander, beacause IT HAD PITCHED OUTSIDE FUCKING LEG STUMP.
You know what: we weren’t near a computer yesterday and we predicted that last comment.
We hadn’t paid much attention to the image when we uploaded it, but suddenly, in the middle of yesterday afternoon, we had this feeling that it hadn’t pitched in line with the stumps and that someone would point this out in the comments.
We’re not lying. These are the things we worry about on our days off.
No Lèse Majesté intended. My irritation is with the laws. When a correct decision isn’t obvious to such stalwarts of the game as your good self, then the rule is too complicated. Wikipedia has an article on LBW that is twice as long as the article on Caught, and three times as long as the article on Bowled.
What gets on my waz is perfectly exemplified by your Hawkeye snap. If the batsman is right handed, then we trust the umpire to be able to decide whether the ball would have hit the stumps or not. But with exactly the same trajectory to a left-handed batsman, we don’t think that the umpire can decide properly. Eh? What possible difference does the way the batsman is facing make to the difficulty of making the decision?
what do you mean by 3rd stump in cricket ?