Why leg before wicket remains cricket’s most contentious law

It would be rare to find a cricketer at any level who has not fallen victim to a leg-before-wicket decision which he or she felt to be unjust.

Although caught is the most common form of dismissal, with 57 percent, LBW accounts for around 14 percent of dismissals, meaning that its importance should not be treated lightly.

This is placed into greater perspective because the decision rests with the umpire.

In today’s international cricket, umpires are supported and informed by technology and by an off-the-field third umpire who has access to the technology.

In professional cricket, professionally trained umpires make decisions without such support.

In club cricket, there are umpires, usually former players, who have obtained umpiring qualifications but there are many matches at a lower level where the umpires are also players in the match. This does raise the issue of potential bias, especially as the relevant law is open to significant interpretation.

The original cricket laws of 1744 did not contain a dismissal mode of LBW, only requiring no “standing unfair to strike” by strikers.

In those days, a curved bat was used to hit underarm deliveries, so the striker needed to stand at distance from the leg stump to provide an arc to swing at the ball. Thirty years later, the introduction of straight bats changed this stance and strikers were able to make strategic use of their legs to defend the wicket.

Revised rules in 1774 specified that the batsman was to be given out if he, “puts his leg before the wicket with a design to stop the ball and actually prevent the ball from hitting his wicket by it.”

In 1788, the word design was removed, and accidental obstruction added, while in 1823, the point of interception was