Should it have to pitch in line?...

[gbatman]

Should it have to pitch in line?...

Should the ball have to pitch in line to be given out LBW? Just saw a ball that would have hit middle half way up bowled by Siddle in the the last test in SA in SA's first innings that was referred by Australia and given not out.

With the referal system i don't see the need for the ball to have to pitch in line for it to be LBW. Flat boring wickets are favoring batsmen and making test cricket boring by making it a batsmans game, are the rules as well?

 

[Mousey]

Re: Should it have to pitch in line?...

Only without referals. With referals you can see if it would go on, without the umpire would be guessing.

 

[gbatman]

Re: Should it have to pitch in line?...

Only without referals. With referals you can see if it would go on, without the umpire would be guessing.

i agree, there is always a little guess work in judging LBW's, sometimes the umpires are unsure if the ball was pitched outside the line or not and give a bit of leway and will give an LBW if it was close to in line. With the referal avaliable I think umpires are going the other way if it's close to in line and giving not out and leaving it up to the referal. This is why it might not be so bad to use up referals as a bowling side perhaps...