Ted Dexter Current Opinion and Memories

Channel 4 Test match coverage has given us a number of innovations. Some of them seem a little contrived, but the superimposition of the red strip down the pitch and the “ghosting” of the pads to show the stumps behind, has brought real benefits in the understanding of the L.B.W. Law. If nothing else, the commentators have been forced to articulate it's subtleties rather better than previously.

So now we are all experts. Or are we? Let me set you a simple test. A batsman goes to sweep and is hit full toss on the front leg. The point of impact is between wicket and wicket (not a very good case for the red strip treatment which really only shows where the ball pitches) and the general line of the ball suggests that it will go on to hit the stumps. Out or not out?

Your immediate response is likely to be a request for further information. If the ball is going to hit the stumps on the full then it is almost certainly out. But if it is going to hit the pitch first, does it matter who has actually bowled the ball? If the bowler is Shane Warne on a turning pitch, the chances of it spinning past the off stump are pretty high. If it is a gentle arm ball from an English off-spinner on a flat track then the raised finger is more likely.

In this case we may feel that the umpire should not be in the business of making assumptions about what the ball may or may not do after the ball has hit the pad. And yet that is exactly what he is required to do for every single L.B.W. decision he ever gives. About the only certain thing about L.B.W. is that is always a matter of opinion and never a matter of fact.

There is a further oddity about the full toss conundrum. When a group of “experts” were posed the question recently, almost without exception we all thought that it was traditionally given out while the umpires in our midst were more circumspect. Looking at the Law as it stands there is no “requirement” to give it out and it is a particular case where it may be right to give umpires more direction.

The much more difficult and prevalent problem is for the umpire to decide whether a stroke has been made at the ball or just a pretence. There is one method used where the bat is brought down on the line of the ball but remains behind the pad. The other is the batsman deliberately playing outside the line of the ball while his only intention is to pad the ball away. Sometimes we all feel that continued subterfuge of this kind should earn a dismissive finger from the umpire, but the Law does not allow for irritation or cumulative evidence.

What has emerged from discussions on this point is that there is no attempt in the Law to define what is a “stroke” and what is not. First-class umpires who have mostly played the game tell me that they are well aware of which is which but still have difficulty in being sure of the ball hitting the stumps since the “non-shot” device is almost always used with the pad well forward outside the off-stump. For the benefit of the week-end umpire of limited experience, it may be that the Law could actually say that hiding the bat behind the pad is not considered a stroke.
The late Bob Wyatt, stalwart England Captain in the thirties, remained adamant all his life that the first major change in the Law was fatally flawed. This was when the ball was first allowed to pitch outside the off-stump, even though the point of impact still had to be between wicket and wicket. He always claimed that a better solution would have been to simply widen the target (probably a fourth stump).

A “solution” was considered necessary to stop a few cautious players who became expert at judging the pitch of the ball and padded away anything outside the “red” strip. What the Law changers failed to appreciate was the extent to which bowling methods would change once the requirement to pitch between wicket and wicket was removed. The front-on fast bowler charging through the crease was a new phenomenon culminating in the greatest exponent Malcolm Marshall. Derek Underwood was another who gained great advantage by being able to bowl from wide with this new chance of getting an L.B.W. decision in his favour.

There has been talk recently of doing away with all the frills and simply making Leg-Before-Wicket as simple as those three little words. If it is going to hit, then you are out, mate! But the thought of what is currently thoroughly defensive bowling, such as Tufnell in his over-the-wicket, into the rough mode against right-handers becoming a full scale attacking method, is a bit too much for purists to bear.

Apart from going back to the original Law with four stumps which is certainly worth some trial matches to see how it works, I have always harboured an idea of giving the batsman two L.B.W chances rather than one. At least it would be spectator friendly, saving the frustration of going to see a great player perform only for the umpire to send him on his way with apparently precious little evidence.

If the batsman had two chances, he could scarcely complain at unfairness. And the umpire could reasonably be rather more harsh on those batsmen who are over keen on using their pads for survival.