Print

[edge]

If you're playing a shot, ball has to hit you in line with the stumps for it to be out. Don't see that this changes if it's hit outside leg rather than outside off.

[ajmw89]

If the ball pitches outside leg, not out.
If it hits you on the full outside leg, and the umpire believes the ball would have hit the stumps on it's current trajectory, then that's out for me...

[Mtown Don]

It's not really a matter of opinion. Part d) of the law as quoted by Tim explains it can only be out if the initial impact is in line or, if no shot is offered, outside off

[mini998]

Not out

Any impact(full or not) outside the leg stump is not out regardless of a shot offered or not.

[skip1973]

Glad a few of you don't umpire my games.

[felix]

The law's clear on this one, if you're playing a shot and the ball strikes you on the full, the impact's got to be between wicket and wicket.  The bit that always struck me as a bit odd is the last bit...

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

So if you can see the spin on the ball, it hits you full on the toe on the line of leg stump but you can tell it's an offspinner that would have turned past leg stump you just have to give it out anyway.

[Rob580]

The law's clear on this one, if you're playing a shot and the ball strikes you on the full, the impact's got to be between wicket and wicket.  The bit that always struck me as a bit odd is the last bit...

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

So if you can see the spin on the ball, it hits you full on the toe on the line of leg stump but you can tell it's an offspinner that would have turned past leg stump you just have to give it out anyway.

You have to assume it is continuing on it's current trajectory. It's not a case of you have to assume it's going straight on, so if it hits in front of leg stump on the full, you have to take into account the angle of the delivery. So if they're bowling wide of the crease and it hits the batsman in front of leg on the full, you can be pretty sure it's not out, as it's going down.

If in doubt. Not Out. Keep your hands in your pockets son.

Also getting onto the original point, i would say you're out as it didn't pitch outside leg as it didnt pitch anywhere! But to be honest it sounds like it serves you right, missing a full toss thats just outside leg? You should have put him in the trees! 

[Combinho]

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails,

either (i) is between wicket and wicket,

or (ii) if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.

That says, in plain English, that to be out the impact has to be in-line or outside off if not playing a shot. You therefore cannot be out ever if the impact is outside leg.

[felix]

You have to assume it is continuing on it's current trajectory. It's not a case of you have to assume it's going straight on, so if it hits in front of leg stump on the full, you have to take into account the angle of the delivery. So if they're bowling wide of the crease and it hits the batsman in front of leg on the full, you can be pretty sure it's not out, as it's going down.

In the OP's original it was clear that the bowler was left arm over or right arm round.  If it hit in front of leg stump and continued on its current trajectory, it is hard to imagine how it would miss the stumps, at least taking line into account.  You're right you don't assume it's going straight on but carries on with the angle, so yes if he was right arm over and it hit in front of leg, it's almost certainly not out.  I was talkiing about changes of trajectory, i.e. spin or swing.

[GarrettJ]

to be out LBW it doesnt have to hit off or middle or all 3 it only has to be clipping leg stump to be out.

if it PITCHES outside leg it cant be out bit it was a FULL TOSS so that rule doesnt apply

[tim2000s]

to be out LBW it doesnt have to hit off or middle or all 3 it only has to be clipping leg stump to be out.

if it PITCHES outside leg it cant be out bit it was a FULL TOSS so that rule doesnt apply

Hit on the full outside leg is not out, regardless of the trajectory of the ball, as stated in the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KarlPennington]

We have established it never pitched and we have established that no shot was being played. I'm trying to visualise your situation, did the ball swing? If so it would be difficult for the umpire to judgde how much a ball is going to swing. If it didn't swing how wide was the bowler? considering it was missing leg at the crease but was going to go on to hit?

Regardless the scorebook says it was out so it was out

[swamidude]

AND(d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails,

either (i) is between wicket and wicket

or (ii) if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

Why are people finding this so difficult? Impact outside leg automatically rules out the possibility of being given out, and the ball not bouncing doesn't make any difference.

[Lumsden]

.... and we have established that no shot was being played

On the contrary, I was playing a shot albeit not a very good one as it hit my pads. I was attempting to flick it to a short leg-side boundary. The ball was from a left arm over bowling with a hint inswing and the ball hit me on the full at the bottom of my leg guard which was outside leg stump. If I was to guess the trajectory of the ball (had I not been stood been stood there), it probably would have pitched on leg and hit leg or leg + a bit of middle. The umpire (a young kid who had never umpired before) probably just thought that is going to hit the stumps so I will give it out.

[GarrettJ]

id have given you out and if an umpire had given me out for those reasons given i would have been fine with it.