Yeah I've often thought that very thing. I suppose the argument is it may not have always hit the bat, yet still possibly go onto the stumps if it had not deviated off the pad. But yeah that particular one looked like it was going to hit bat if the pad wasn't in the way.
Gonna pretend the censored word is sh*tting.
I too am "lawyering" right now. It's a fun pretend job right?
It barely grazed the pad on the way to the middle of the bat. I mean I get that it would be ridiculously complicated and unnecessary to change the rule, but just watching that it's like who cares whether it's pad first or not, it's obviously not going anywhere near the stumps.
Don't have a problem with it tbh. If you don't want to be out lbw then get your bat in front of your pad. Could never change the rule - if you did it would just give batsmen an excuse to tuck their but behind their pad whenever they're uncertain about the line of the ball.
our basin specialist is in. hell no.
Well it should be. It's called "leg before wicket". I would say that the philosophy behind it is to prevent batsmen from using their pads instead of their bats to block the ball from hitting the stumps. When the batsman is playing a genuine shot and the ball is making a beeline towards the middle of his bat and incidentally brushes the pad on the way there, I fail to see which logical/theoretical/philosophical/emotional/spiritual aspect of lbw is relevant.
I'm not actually advocating any complicated change to the rule because it would be a bit ridiculous, but what I'm talking about wouldn't lead to that outcome at all. It would only protect batsman who are playing at the ball and playing down the right line and hell, actually HITTING the ball.
