Leg Before Wicket?

Question

I've always wondered about this:-
If the ball strikes the batsman's front pad in line with the stumps (without first pitching outside leg stump) and the bastsman has the bat tucked in behind the pad, does the umpire ever consider giving it not out on the basis the ball would have gone on to hit the bat rather than the stumps?

If not why not?...as the LBW law by it's very nature suggests the ball would have hit the stumps if it had not hit the pad....and this theoretically cannot occur if there's a bat in between.

Thoughts?

I understand the sentiment about the bat behind the pad not being in the spirit of the game and how it can lead to boring cricket. But if we give batsmen out in a situation where the ball CANNOT have possibly hit the stumps then it surely CANNOT be deemed leg before wicket. As for it being poor technique, I agree. But if we start giving batsmen out soley due to poor technique rather than what has occurred then batsmen like Sourav Ganguly would be on his way every time he receives a quick short rising delivery!

Answer 1

The law states that if the ball had to hit the wicket but for the pad or any part of his/ her body, except for the glove of a hand in contact with the bat, a batsman can be given out LBW, provided there hasn't been a contact with the bat before hitting the pad. The lbw rule is designed to prevent a batsman protecting his wicket against being bowled, with his pads or body, rather than his bat.
Also, a batsman should be playing with the bat, not pads. Having the bat tucked behind the pads is not how the game was intended to be played.

Answer 2

padding is an important part of test cricket and it also require skill
and regarding ur doubt on padding:cricket rule says that if the batsman didn't have intention of playing and if the ball has pitched in line of stumps [or outside for padding only of course]
and if the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps ,he's OUT.
u can also imagine how unfair it is to block the ball away for a bowler who had burnt away decent calories in his run up and delivery.so the cricket clause has provided this benifit that even though the ball had pitched outside but sure to hit the stumps,in
the event of padding,he will be out.
lack of technique and tense situation can trigger padding mindset
in a batsman.but it is a highly evolved play ,frankly speaking.
because only that man who has a very good picture of his stands
and his stumps can do it effectively.
as for ganguly,we have seen he tends to indulge in padding often
against spinning ball and had thrown away his wicket.
i have seen sachin dravid and mark taylor doing padding correctly.

Answer 3

10 points for ur question sir!!!!
well...its nice 2 think deep..but actually what lbw suggests is that had ther been no pads in between the ball would have gone to hit the stumps...but in the procss...its assumd that there is nothing beyond the pad...its only the stumps!! n thats the reason wehn we see slow motion hawk eye replays...v see that once they show us the bal hitting the pads...then the ball's travelling from the pad 2 the stumps is shown blink!! suggestinfg n assuming that theres is nnothing else in between!! if v give not out for a batsman keeping his bat behind the pads...then i am afraid...cricket will becom a boring game...as many players will just keep thier bats behind..n keep pading..n theyll do so to avoid the close in fielders when the spinner is bowling...!!! so i guess...the rule iis good enough...but i must admit..that ur question is even bettter

Answer 4

I've been playing cricket since i was a toddler and have been hooked into understanding the game on every level possible since, yet i have never considered your question before. i have umpired in grade cricket in the city where i live and as an umpire, i have never and probably would never give a batsman out in that circumstance because for the batsman to stick his bat behind his pad, he may have misplayed the shot and therefore the simple fact that the "benefit of the doubt" must go to the batsman which requires me to give the batsman 'not out'. Any more thoughts like that please ask as i would love to deepen my knowledge.

Answer 5

its a rule of cricket that the bat should hit it first than the pad. umpires do the right thing as a rule is a rule the pad should not hit the ball first whether the bat is behind it or not.

Answer 6

the rule of the icc says that if the ball is in line with the stumps and hits the pads,the batsmen can b judged out on that basis

Answer 7

actually it is a wrong technique to play the ball with ur bat behind the pads. Batsmen can use their pads to fend the ball away. if they play with the bat then it might edged to the keeper ... so empire doent conisder if the bat is behind pad or not

Answer 8

really chucked out from your question!!
well may be it is that the umpires will not give him out!!
i need to think more about it!!

Answer 9

well its simple if he is offering a shot that time its not out.... if he is not offering shot that time he'll be given out....