Ian bell's LBW decision.?

Dear Raja,

Very good question.

I think the reason has more to do with the interpretation of the URDS than with the laws of LBW. Per the laws of LBW, this was out. Attached below are the points 4, 5, 6 of the LBW law, which would have supported an "out" verdict:

"4.The ball must intercept a part of the batsman's person : If the ball hits any part of the body or protective gear, it is a potential candidate for LBW (i.e. it need not hit the leg).

5.The ball must hit in line : The ball must hit the batsman in the region directly between the two wickets. An important exception is that, if the impact is outside the off stump, the batsman can be out LBW if he does not make a genuine attempt to play the ball (that is, if he does not "play a stroke"). If the impact is between wicket and wicket, the playing of a stroke is irrelevant.

6.The ball must have been going to hit the wicket : If the ball's trajectory suggests that it would have missed the wicket had the batsman not been present, then he should not be out LBW."

If the third umpire was making the judgment it would be "out". However here is the caveat, the 3rd umpire does not have the jurisdiction to produce a verdict. For the verdict:

"The Third Umpire then reports to the on-field umpire whether his analysis supports the original call, contradicts the call, or is inconclusive."

In this situation the main umpire interpreted the data produced by the 3rd umpire (i.e., the distance) to indicate that the analysis supported the original call that the distance was too much to produce a conclusive judgment for him at that moment of play and that it did not contradict the reason why he gave the "not out" judgment.

In my opinion this situation has more to do with the way the URDS system is interpreted to work rather than the laws governing LBW.

Thanks

Rehman of Multan

He was further than 2.5metres down the pitch, In the law of umpiring anything 2.5m further from the stumps must be ruled not out due to the unpredicatablity of the balls future. This is ridiculous as it would clearly hit the stumps and im an english fan.

At the end of the day, if you get 2.5m down th pitch everyball, you cant be given out LBW. Same law for everyone. But a stupid law at that

I agree with You Raja. If that ball hits the stumps, Then it would be Given as out or not. 2.5 meters. I think the umpire refer option is just a waste of time.

The 3rd umpire always giving the answer as to the benefit of the UMPIRE, so y we needed that?

Even Afridi's appeals either broken.

POOR rules.. and in the mean time.. Even India scored 1000s of runs in a day cricket, the opponents will be easily try to chase the score.. India.. its ridicules to to score More and more runs without seeing your Fielding and Bowling Strength

Bell has at all times had rather a lot to show. Being touted as one of the most pleasant little one in England, Bell had a lot of advantage to be a powerful drive in international Cricket, on the second Bell hasn't relatively lived as much as his skill and he wants take this chance, or the britain selectors might lose all religion in him. Nonetheless the Edgbaston pitch is tipped to be as flat as Cardiff, the ball normally will not swing a lot for both groups, there will be little seam motion for any bowlers, and of path the Australian bowling line-up hasn't looked frightened at all. If Bell cannot take his hazard at Edgbaston, on a flat pitch against an inexperienced and anxious watching attack, then does he fairly have the mentality for experiment Cricket? Quite a lot of pressure, yes, however whilst you say comments like Bell has, you need to back it up

Rules are rules.

Anything pitch 2.5m further from the stumps must be ruled not out.

Rules are rules

Rules are rules; sometimes it favours the concerned party, sometimes it doesn't: at the end, if it's consistent none has any complaints.

I am agree with DEAN.

Sheer cheating and mockery of umpiring. Umpire should be baned

Couldn't prove it would've hit.