Change Umpire's Rules - Judge Batsman's 'Intent'

World Cup 2011, 2nd March

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Ian Bell's LBW Referral

Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s acrimonious call about the Umpire Decision Review System being flawed may have created ripples through the media and its followers. When England batsman Ian Bell’s leg-before refusal was referred for Review, the ball clearly seemed to be hitting the stumps and the skipper was apt to believe that the batsman would be given out. However, the reviewed judgment maintained ;not out' on the basis that he had played well forward and was 2.5 metres from the stumps. 

Whose Call Is it Anyway?

A disappointed Dhoni made his point after the match about the review system being flawed. However, what the Indian skipper did not realize is that the UDRS is merely an aid to the umpire who is the end is the final arbiter. When viewed from this perspective, it seems okay. In fact, it gives the appealing team the benefit of knowing that the opinion of another umpire (TV umpire) has been considered. In the framing of rules in the future, some things need to be considered if they haven’t already:

Tall batsmen can play half forward and get away!

1.      1.  Intent: Because a tall guy can even play half forward and get a reprieve whereas somebody who’s Tendulkar’s height of 5’ 5” would be adjusted leg before, how far can we stretch objectivity? By objectivity we mean that it’s logical that over a greater distance of the pad from the stumps, stark deviations in the ball’s path are more likely. But this theory has to be quashed merely to avoid batsman with bigger shanks taking advantage of ‘common logic.’  Joel Garner or Kieron Pollard at 6’ 8” would play half forward with a chance of scoring more off the ball instead of a more defensive fully forward stroke.

Conclusion: Make the rule so that only if the batsman is fully forward, will the umpire consider ‘not out’ as the likely call. This is irrespective of how far down the pitch he already is or whether he's a tall man or short. 

Remember, however, that the ump is the final arbiter and any subjectivity from him is fine. These are rather guidelines than rules that will govern umpires’ decision making.

2.

Batsmen stand well outside their crease to unfairly negate lbws

2. 2.Batsman standing well outside his crease: While this is the likely scenario only when the wicket-keeper is standing back (obviously when the pacers are bowling), many batsmen are resorting to it to avoid the lbw decision. One can even imagine a batsman playing from ‘the area where he’s standing,’ well outside, (what would effectively have been his crease), neither fully forward nor half cocked. And when wrapped on the pad they would be difficult to give out by the ‘common logic’ of being a good distance from the stumps.

By the way, some of us traditionally believed that a batsman standing well outside his crease risks playing the ball 'faster' over a distance less than 20 yards and would be loathe to it. That is an old wives’ tale now. Throughout the 1990s’, if not earlier, batters started to stand well outside their creases to 'meet the ball' before it began to swing.

Conclusion: The rules should be amended to state that, like in point 1 above, a batsman’s lbw verdict would be decided on the basis of ‘intent’ of the batsman to either play fully forward (giving him the benefit of doubt) or conversely, of playing either half cocked, from the crease, or back, whence he would not be given the benefit.

Although a forward stroke, the Sweep invited lbws in the 1990s

3.       3. Batsmen playing fully forward have been given out in the last 20 years: It was only at the dawn of the ‘90s decade that umpires starting raising their finger when the batsman tried to sweep a spinner, missed and had the ball hit the leading pad. Until then, traditional mindsets and the rule of law prohibited many. 

Why? Because a sweep stroke was considered an example of a batsman playing ‘fully forward’; the position of his leading pad is as far out as that of a batsman playing a fully forward straight-bat stroke.

So, what was the deciding factor in the umpires’ turning so bold? Answer: “The batsman is taking liberties by playing across the line of the ball.” 

Just because the rules state that a batsman playing well forward should be given the benefit of the doubt, he should not take advantage of that cover.

This quiet revolution, hailed by more than a few commentators about twenty years ago has been well accepted. What we must realize is that subconsciously, umpires are judging ‘intent.’- intent either to play truly forward with humility to a ball that has them in a quandary, or intent to misuse some conveniences given to them.

Another good example that the cricket world does recognize ‘intent’ is that when a batsman merely pads a ball without an attempt at a stroke, he can be given out even if:

1.       1. The ‘point of impact’ is outside the line of the stumps

2.       2. He is playing forward

Why, even a leg bye is disallowed in the case of deliberate padding!

Conclusion: Well, with amazing benefits given to batsmen in the last 50 years such as if the ‘point of impact is outside the line of the stumps’ (if the batsman attempted a stroke) and that the ‘ball pitching outside leg-stump can never claim an lbw,’ it is time to re-write the laws to tighten things against them. Batters’ ‘intent’ must be judged in a fully forward stroke!