Tony BeccaOF ALL the ways that a batsman can be dismissed in cricket, the one that causes the most controversy is leg before wicket, and when all is said and done, that is why after years of resistance, the ICC finally decided a few years ago on neutral umpires for every Test match.
Over the years, many batsmen have been given run out when they were safely home and not out when they were obviously short of the crease, and as many have been given out caught by the wicketkeeper when they did not touch the ball and not out when the sound of ball on bat could have been heard a mile away.
The most common 'bad' decision, however, is the leg before decision. It is the one which visiting teams, at any level of the game, fears most.
Although it was not highlighted as one of the reasons for the introduction of the elite panel of umpires, there is no question that the number of complaints by visiting teams about the amount of leg before wicket decisions that go against them was one reason why there is no home town umpire in a Test match these days and why it may not be long before there also will be no home town umpire in a one-day international.
Right now there is one home town umpire in a one-day international.
CONTROVERSY
After the recent triangular series in Australia, Pakistan complained about controversial leg before wicket decisions that they claim favoured the home team. They have called on the ICC to get rid of the home town umpire in one-day matches and the ICC has said that it will be looking at it during its May meeting in London.
While two neutral umpires in one-day cricket will improve things, however, based on what is happening in Test cricket, the leg before wicket decision will remain the most controversial in cricket.
It will remain so for the simple reason that a batsman, in his opinion, is never, ever out leg before wicket not even when the ball pitches mid stump, does not turn an inch, does not get up more than an inch, and with the batsman going back, hits him in front of middle stump.
There is one other reason, however.
Like the batsman who is never out, the bowler also believes that almost every ball that hits the pad would have hit the wicket, that his pad was in line with the stumps when it was hit, that although it hit him outside the offstump, he did not play a stroke, and that the ball did not pitch outside the leg stump.
As far as the bowler is concerned, cricket is a batsman's game and it will never change.
According to the bowler, and particularly so the slow bowler, the rules favour the batsman, and so too the umpire who, in interpreting the laws of the game, almost always rules in favour of the batsman even when he has followed to the letter the law dealing with the leg before wicket decision, and even when the ball would have hit the stumps.
Based on what has been happening recently, however, things seem to be changing and bowlers, particularly slow bowlers, should be smiling.
Although the law says nothing about whether the batsman is playing forward or is playing back, umpires over the years have tended to ignore a slow bowler's appeal if the ball hits the batsman playing forward - certainly not if he is fully stretched.
This, however, is what Law 36 states:
"The striker is out LBW if (a) the bowler delivers a ball, not being a no-ball, and (b) the ball if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the offside of the striker's wicket, and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full-pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person, and (d) the point of impact, even above the level of the bails, either is between wicket and wicket, or is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the offstump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket".
The law says nothing about the batsman playing forward or back. The umpire's job, therefore, is simply to decide, to judge whether, angle or no angle, spin or no spin, the ball would have hit the wicket.
If in his opinion it would have done so, he should then give the batsman out just as a few of them are doing now right around the world.
ONE OF THE BEST UMPIRES
In the Test series between England and South Africa for example, Aleem Dar of Pakistan, one of the best umpires around, sent Herschelle Gibbs packing when he played forward to a straight delivery from left-arm spinner Ashley Giles. And in the current Carib Beer Series, at least three batsmen have given out playing forward to slow bowlers.
Daren Ganga of Trinidad and Tobago played forward to Jamaica's left-arm Nikita Miller and was given out by Guyanese Eddie Nichols; teammate Richard Kelly played forward to Miller and was given out by Jamaican Maurice Chung; and Trinidad and Tobago's Samuel Badree was also given out by Barbadian Dalton Holder when he played forward to Miller.
Obviously, all five umpires believed the bowlers, and especially so Miller, defeated the batsmen with their guile.
They believed that the ball would have hit the wicket, they saw no reason why the bowlers should not get their just reward, and they made their decisions according to the law.
