Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Leg before wicket

Leg before wicket (LBW) is a method of dismissal in the sport of cricket whereby a batsman is ruled out if the umpire determines that a delivered ball, which has not first touched the bat, strikes any part of the batsman's body (other than the hand holding the bat) and would have gone on to hit the stumps, subject to specific conditions regarding the ball's pitch and the batsman's actions. The precise criteria for an LBW dismissal, as outlined in the International Cricket Council's playing conditions, require that the delivery is not a no-ball, pitches in line between the wickets or on the off side of the striker's wicket, intercepts the batsman's person without prior contact with the bat, and the point of impact is in line with the stumps (or outside the off stump if no genuine attempt to play the ball is made), with the ball's projected path confirming it would have struck the wicket. A batsman is not out LBW if the ball pitches outside the line of the leg stump, if a genuine attempt to play the shot is evident and the impact is outside the off stump line, or if the ball would have missed the stumps even after interception. These rules apply across all formats of the game, including Test matches, One Day Internationals, and T20s, ensuring consistency in umpiring decisions. The LBW rule originated in 1774 as a measure to prevent batsmen from deliberately using their legs to block the ball from hitting the stumps, marking the first formal inclusion of such a dismissal in codified laws. Over time, it evolved significantly: in 1839, the (MCC) mandated that the ball must pitch in line with the stumps for an LBW call; by 1937, the rule was expanded to include balls pitching outside the off stump if they would have hit the stumps; and in 1980, it further allowed dismissals for impacts outside the off stump line if the batsman did not offer a shot. These changes reflected adaptations to evolving batting techniques, such as the increased use of and defensive play, and addressed debates over fairness, with early proponents like Australian bowler advocating for broader application to counter leg-side blocking. LBW remains one of cricket's most debated and complex laws due to the subjective elements in umpiring, such as judging the ball's and the batsman's , often leading to controversies in high-stakes matches. The introduction of the (DRS) in 2008, utilizing ball-tracking technology like , has transformed LBW adjudication by providing umpires with visual projections to verify if the ball would have hit the stumps, reducing errors and increasing accuracy in decisions. This technological integration, now standard in , has made LBW a pivotal dismissal for bowlers, particularly spinners and swing bowlers aiming to trap batsmen plumb in front.

Definition and Conditions

Core Definition

Leg before wicket (LBW) is a dismissal under Law 36 of the , where the batter is ruled out if a valid strikes any part of their (other than the hand holding the ) without first touching the , and the would have gone on to hit the stumps, provided all specified conditions are met.

Dismissal Criteria

Under Law 36 of the , a batter is dismissed leg before wicket (LBW) only if all five specified conditions are met, ensuring the dismissal reflects a fair obstruction of a legitimate that would otherwise have struck the stumps. First, the bowler must deliver a valid that is not a . Second, if the ball is not intercepted full-pitch, it must in line between the two sets of stumps or on the of the batter's wicket; this excludes any outside the line of the leg stump, preventing angled deliveries from the from resulting in LBW. Third, the ball must not have touched the and must be intercepted by any part of the batter's —such as the , , or body—either full-pitch or after pitching. Fourth, the point of impact must lie in line between the two sets of stumps, or, if outside the off stump, there must have been no genuine attempt to play a shot with the . Fifth, the ball's trajectory, but for the interception, must have resulted in it hitting the , meaning it would have intersected the stumps within the height defined by the bails and the top of the stumps. Judging whether elements are "in line" requires the umpire to evaluate the ball's path relative to the stumps at key points: the pitch location, the impact on the body, and the projected continuation toward the stumps. For the pitch, this involves observing or inspecting the pitch mark where the ball first struck the ground to confirm it was not outside the leg stump line; the umpire visualizes an imaginary straight line from the bowler's stumps through the batter's stumps to assess alignment. Similarly, for impact, the umpire determines if the contact point aligns with the stumps' width, considering the batter's stance at the moment the ball comes into play. The expected path post-impact accounts for factors like the ball's speed, bounce, and potential deviation, projecting whether it would have cannoned into the stumps rather than passing over or beside them. LBW applies even in scenarios without a , such as full tosses, provided the is intercepted full-pitch by the and satisfies the other conditions, including that the is in line and the would have hit the . This ensures the covers deliberate blocking of straight or angled deliveries that evade the but obstruct a direct hit on the stumps.

Exceptions and Not Out Scenarios

In leg before wicket (LBW) decisions, several exceptions prevent a dismissal even if other conditions appear met, ensuring the rule does not unfairly penalize the batter. One key exception occurs when the ball pitches outside the line of the leg stump, defined as the off-side boundary of the batter's wicket; in such cases, the batter cannot be given out LBW regardless of where the ball strikes the body or its projected trajectory toward the stumps. Another exception applies when the batter makes a genuine to play a shot with the and is struck on the body outside the line of the off stump; here, the impact position overrides the potential , rendering the batter . This protects batters who are actively engaging with the on the , distinguishing it from scenarios where no stroke is played. No LBW is given if the umpire determines the ball's projected path would have passed over the top of the stumps or missed them entirely, even if it pitched in line and struck the body. Special cases involving deflection also result in not out scenarios. Only the first interception by the batter's person is considered; if the ball touches the before the (including deflections), or if and contact simultaneously, it is treated as having touched the first, preventing LBW. For the trajectory projection, the assumes the ball continues in a straight line in the direction it was travelling immediately before the .

Historical Development

Origins and Early Laws

Prior to the introduction of the leg before wicket (LBW) rule, cricket's dismissal methods under the 1744 Laws primarily consisted of and , as batsmen employed curved bats and typically stood aside from the stumps, making deliberate leg obstruction rare and unnecessary to penalize. Without protective leg guards, batsmen had little incentive or means to use their legs defensively, and the game's evolving play did not yet demand such a provision. The LBW rule emerged in the 1774 , drafted by a including representatives from major cricket counties, to address the growing tactic of batsmen using their legs to deliberately block the ball from striking the . This change was prompted by the transition to straighter, narrower bats, which encouraged batsmen to stand closer to the stumps and rely more on their legs—especially against yorkers—rather than the bat alone, as early protective pads began to enable such defensive play. The exact wording stated: "The striker is out if he puts his leg before the with a design to stop the ball and actually prevent the ball from hitting it." By the , the refinement of batting techniques and equipment amplified the need for the rule, as batsmen increasingly adopted "pad-play" to shield the , a practice that became prevalent on truer pitches. In response to ambiguities in application, the (MCC) in clarified the law, stipulating that a batsman could be given out LBW only if the ball pitched in line between the wickets, thereby excluding deflections or blocks on the where the ball pitched outside the stumps. This adjustment aimed to balance bowler equity with legitimate batsman defense, setting a foundational precedent for the rule's intent to prevent obstructive play.

Controversies and Reform Attempts

In the late 19th century, the increasing adoption of pad-play by batsmen—using their leg guards to block deliveries pitching outside the line of the off stump—frustrated bowlers, who argued it created an unfair defensive advantage and stifled aggressive play. This practice became particularly prevalent with the evolution of slower round-arm , allowing batsmen to stand in front of the wickets and rely on rather than the , leading to widespread calls from the bowling community for reforms to the LBW to restore balance. These frustrations culminated in several failed reform attempts. In 1888, during a meeting of the County Cricket Council at , representatives proposed amending the law to permit LBW dismissals for balls pitching outside the off stump, aiming to penalize excessive pad use; however, the (MCC) rejected the change, opting instead to issue a statement condemning pad-play as an "objectionable practice" without altering the rules. The issue resurfaced in 1902 when the MCC debated a broader motion to eliminate the pitching restriction altogether, allowing LBW verdicts irrespective of where the ball landed; despite gaining a , the proposal failed to achieve the required two-thirds support, primarily due to fears it would excessively favor bowlers and disadvantage batsmen. Notable incidents underscored the ongoing tensions around LBW decisions. During India's 1947–48 tour of , Hemu Adhikari's LBW dismissal to Bill Johnston in a Test match became emblematic of perceived umpiring inconsistencies against touring sides, fueling arguments and protests back in over the fairness of the call. Similarly, in the 1996 Titan Cup ODI between and in , Mohammad Azharuddin's tight LBW decision off sparked crowd displeasure, leading to unrest and disruption as fans reacted to what the batsman and supporters viewed as erroneous umpiring. Perceptions of bias in LBW umpiring have long affected touring teams, with home umpires statistically more likely to rule in favor of their own batsmen by turning down LBW appeals against them. Empirical of over 1,000 Test matches from 1950 to 2008 reveals that away teams were given out LBW approximately 16% more often than home batsmen when matches were officiated by two home umpires, compared to matches with at least one neutral umpire, disadvantaging visiting sides and contributing to broader debates on officiating . The introduction of neutral umpires in 2002 helped mitigate this, but historical patterns reinforced the view that such biases exacerbated frustrations for touring teams.

Major Changes to the Law

In 1927, the (MCC) reduced the circumference of the from approximately 5 9/16 inches to 5 1/2 inches. This adjustment sought to restore balance between bat and without directly altering the LBW wording, though its impact on dismissal rates remained marginal. Four years later, in 1931, the MCC increased the dimensions of the stumps from 27 inches high by 8 inches wide to 28 inches by 9 inches, making it marginally easier for bowlers to dislodge the bails and indirectly influencing LBW umpiring by expanding the effective target area for projected paths. While not a direct reform to the LBW clause, this equipment modification addressed broader concerns about batsman dominance, including pad-oriented defenses, by heightening the precision required in judgments of whether a would have struck the enlarged wicket. The most significant LBW amendment of the era arrived experimentally in , when the trialed a rule permitting umpires to give batsmen out LBW to deliveries pitching outside the line of the off stump, provided the batsman did not offer a shot, the ball struck the pad in line with the wickets, and it would have continued to hit the stumps. This landmark shift, which balanced advantages for bowlers facing non-playing batsmen, was prompted by decades of debate over pad play and was made permanent in after successful trials showed it increased LBW occurrences without unduly favoring bowlers—accounting for about 31% of such dismissals in during the experimental phase. In 1972, following a two-year experiment that reverted to pre-1935 rules, the MCC restored the provision allowing LBW for balls pitching outside the off stump even if the batsman offered a shot, provided the impact was in line with the wickets and the ball would have hit the stumps. This change targeted persistent pad-play strategies, ensuring that batsmen's engagement did not immunize them from legitimate appeals, and marked a key evolution toward the modern LBW framework. The law was further amended in 1980 to permit LBW dismissals if the ball struck the batsman outside the line of the off stump, provided the batsman did not offer a shot at it and the ball would have hit the stumps, addressing continued concerns over defensive pad use. In response to the , the (ICC) temporarily introduced an extra (DRS) review per innings for both teams starting in 2020, compensating for the use of two home umpires instead of neutral officials due to travel restrictions and aiming to mitigate potential bias in close LBW calls; this measure was reversed once international travel normalized post-2021.

Umpiring and Technological Aids

Traditional Umpiring Methods

In traditional umpiring, the on-field assesses leg before wicket (LBW) decisions through visual estimation of the ball's line, point of impact on the batsman's body, and projected trajectory toward the stumps, drawing on years of experience to apply geometric principles such as angle of projection and bounce estimation. Elite umpires often employ a "gaze-anchor" , fixating their eyes on key reference points like the base of the stumps or the batsman's feet while using to track the ball's path in . This judgment must account for variables including conditions, bowler release height, and the batsman's stance relative to the stumps, with umpires mentally adjusting for factors like ball spin or seam movement to determine if the ball would have struck the had it not been intercepted by the leg. These assessments present significant challenges, requiring split-second decisions often within 0.6 seconds of . Umpires frequently underestimate the ball's , leading to potential misjudgments in trajectory projection, compounded by external pressures such as intense appeals from players and crowd noise that can influence focus. LBW rulings serve as a key measure of an umpire's overall competence, given the decision's complexity compared to other dismissals, demanding precise integration of multiple visual cues under high-stakes conditions. Prior to the widespread adoption of review systems, umpires operated without technological verification, resulting in higher error rates for LBW calls based on post-implementation analyses of overturned decisions. To enhance fairness and reduce home-ground biases, the (ICC) introduced neutral umpires experimentally in 1992, mandating one per Test match from 1994 onward to ensure impartiality in international fixtures. Umpire training emphasizes optimal stance positioning. The umpire at the striker's end stands to the side of the pitch, aligned laterally with the stumps to optimize sightlines for pitch and impact judgments, while the bowler's end umpire focuses on delivery legality and initial trajectory. (MCC) guidelines, as custodians of the , recommend using notational aids such as diagrams of pitch maps and trajectory simulations during coaching to refine line assessments, helping umpires calibrate their visual geometry against real-match scenarios.

Decision Review System (DRS)

The (DRS) was first piloted in during the 2008 Test series between and , where it was used to review on-field umpire decisions, including those for leg before wicket (LBW). This trial marked the initial integration of technology to assist umpires in verifying dismissals, focusing on ball trajectory and contact points relevant to LBW criteria such as pitching location and impact height. Following successful evaluations, the (ICC) officially adopted DRS in November 2009, making it available for all international matches subject to host board agreement. For LBW decisions, incorporates several key technological components to analyze the delivery's path and any potential deflections. , a ball-tracking system using multiple high-speed cameras, simulates the ball's from to stumps, with claims of 99% accuracy in predictions based on calibration and data processing. UltraEdge employs audio and visual waveform analysis to detect edges off the bat or pad, helping distinguish between direct pad impacts and those preceded by bat contact. uses thermal imaging to visualize heat signatures from ball contact on the batsman, providing evidence of impact location for LBW assessments. The DRS process begins with a player or signaling a , prompting umpire to consult the technologies. In matches, each team receives three unsuccessful reviews per , while limited-overs formats allow two; unsuccessful reviews deplete this quota, but successful ones do not. For LBW referrals, projections determine if the ball would have hit the stumps: if the simulation shows the ball missing entirely, the decision is overturned to ; if it hits in line clearly, it is out. The "umpire's call" applies in marginal cases where the projection clips the stumps but does not fully cross them, preserving the on-field umpire's original decision to account for technological margins. In June 2025, the updated protocols, including allowing secondary LBW reviews in caught-behind referrals to result in out decisions on umpire's call (previously ), chronological handling of combined umpire-player reviews, and assessing catch fairness even on no-balls. Despite its adoption in , is not universally implemented in domestic competitions due to high costs—estimated at around $60,000 per match—and logistical challenges in availability of equipment and trained operators. This limits its use to select high-profile domestic events, such as knockout stages in some national tournaments, where boards can afford the investment.

Impact of Technology on Decisions

The introduction of the (DRS) has significantly increased the frequency of leg before wicket (LBW) dismissals in , rising from approximately 14% of all dismissals pre-DRS to 16.6% in the DRS era, with even more pronounced effects for spinners where LBW now accounts for 21% of their wickets compared to 17% before. This shift stems from the precise ball-tracking provided by technologies like , which has reduced umpiring errors in LBW decisions by enabling accurate prediction of the ball's path to the stumps. Overall, DRS overturns around 26% of reviewed LBW decisions, demonstrating its role in correcting human judgment lapses. Despite these advancements, controversies persist regarding Hawk-Eye's accuracy, particularly in spin bowling scenarios or on pitches with variable bounce, where the system's predictive modeling can deviate due to the ball's unpredictable deviation. A notable example is the 2011 World Cup semi-final LBW decision against Sachin Tendulkar, where Hawk-Eye projected the ball hitting all three stumps despite debates over its reliability for spinning deliveries, prompting defenses from the technology's creators on its 5mm margin of error. In the 2010s, the "umpire's call" provision—invoked when the ball-tracking shows partial impact on the stumps—fueled debates on consistency, with critics like Tendulkar arguing it undermines fairness by retaining the on-field umpire's original decision in marginal cases. Post-2020 developments have enhanced ball-tracking through and advanced algorithms for more precise trajectory prediction, improving overall decision reliability in dynamic conditions. These enhancements, integrated into systems like , better handle and speed estimation, reducing prediction errors in LBW reviews. Strategically, has emboldened bowlers to target straighter lines toward the batsman's pads with greater confidence, relying on technology to validate close calls and increasing LBW opportunities, especially for . Conversely, batsmen have adapted by playing fewer defensive shots and away less frequently, opting for more aggressive strokeplay to avoid triggering reviews under the "no stroke" exception. This evolution has made LBW a more central tactical element, altering leg-side play dynamics across formats.

Trends and Perceptions

Statistical Trends in LBW Dismissals

In the early years of , leg before wicket (LBW) dismissals were rare, accounting for approximately 6% of all dismissals between 1877 and 1914. This figure rose gradually over the , reaching 12% in the (1920-1939) and stabilizing around 11-12% through the to , before climbing to 16% in the 1980s and 1990s due to refinements in the and umpiring standards. By the , LBW had become more prevalent, comprising 17% of dismissals since 2000, with the average number of LBW decisions per Test increasing from about 3.5 in the 1960s- to over 5 in the 2010s. The introduction of the (DRS) in 2008 further elevated this rate, from 14% pre-DRS to 16.6% in the post-DRS era through 2024, reflecting greater accuracy in marginal calls. Across formats, LBW rates vary significantly, with Tests showing the highest incidence at around 15% of dismissals, compared to roughly 10% in One Day Internationals (ODIs) and 8% in Internationals (T20Is) as of 2024, attributable to longer exposure to and seam in red-ball . In shorter formats, dismissals dominate (over 60%), reducing the relative share of LBWs, though spin-induced LBWs remain notable in limited-overs games on turning pitches. Data on is less comprehensive due to fewer matches, but LBW rates appear similar to those in men's , with underreporting in earlier eras limiting historical comparisons. Regionally, LBW occurrences are higher in subcontinental conditions, where thrives; for instance, batsmen in and Tests have faced LBW rates exceeding 19%, compared to under 12% in and , where bouncier pitches favor other dismissals.

Cultural Impact and Player Perspectives

The LBW rule has long been a source of in , often sparking debates about fairness and umpiring accuracy, particularly before the widespread adoption of technology. High-profile incidents, such as disputed decisions in series or World Cups, have fueled discussions on whether the law favors bowlers or batsmen, with some players arguing it penalizes defensive play. The introduction of has mitigated some issues but introduced new ones, like the "umpire's call" on impact, leading to frustrations from players including , who has criticized inconsistencies in ball-tracking projections. Culturally, LBW symbolizes the tactical depth of , influencing strategies like leg-theory bowling historically, and remains a pivotal element in match narratives, often dramatized in media and fan discourse.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] ICC MEN'S TEST MATCH PLAYING CONDITIONS
    by all the applicable ICC Regulations pertaining to international cricket and in ... 36 LEG BEFORE WICKET. 36.1 Out LBW. The striker is out LBW if all the ...
  2. [2]
    The evolution of the lbw | ESPNcricinfo
    Dec 28, 2016 · For a batsman to be out leg before wicket, the umpire must decide that the ball has hit the batsman on the body and would have gone on to hit the stumps.
  3. [3]
    Why leg before wicket remains cricket's most contentious law
    Dec 1, 2022 · 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 ...
  4. [4]
    Leg Before Wicket – The Laws Of Cricket | Lord's
    36.1 Out LBW. The striker is out LBW if all the circumstances set out in 36.1.1 to 36.1.5 apply. 36.1.1 The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball.
  5. [5]
    Leg Before Wicket | Cricket Web
    Sep 12, 2011 · When the laws were first codified, back in 1744, there was no provision for LBW. There was simply no need for it as a batsman with a curved bat ...
  6. [6]
    Laws of Cricket - 1774 Version
    The 1774 laws specify ball weight, bat size, and dimensions of stumps and creases. The ball must be delivered with one foot behind the crease. A striker is out ...
  7. [7]
    When It Was Bradman Versus India - Rediff.com
    Nov 21, 2024 · The first Test saw debutants Hemu Adhikari, Gogumal Kishenchand Harisinghani, Khanderao Rangnekar and Jamshed Jenni Irani. Of the four, Adhikari ...
  8. [8]
    1 India vs Australia, 21st October 1996, Bengaluru Titan Cup (Group ...
    Jun 9, 2020 · India slumped to 42/3 by the 16th over, when Md. Azharuddin was adjudged LBW against Gillespie. That was a tight call, and the displeasure ...
  9. [9]
    Not really cricket: Home bias in officiating - CEPR
    Dec 24, 2014 · It is possible that home umpires could favour home teams sub-consciously. Our research does not attempt to examine the motivations of umpires.Missing: perceptions | Show results with:perceptions<|control11|><|separator|>
  10. [10]
    Home Bias in Officiating: Evidence From International Cricket
    Aug 7, 2025 · In international cricket, home nation umpires favoured home teams, but neutral umpires were introduced successfully to address this bias.
  11. [11]
    Christian Ryan: The ball's too big | ESPNcricinfo
    Dec 1, 2009 · Ignoring. The world. The cricket ball shrank three-sixteenths of one inch, by law, in 1927. Then never again.Missing: spin LBW
  12. [12]
    Evolution of bowling, bat and stumps - Early Cricket
    In 1819, the wicket became 26 inches by 7 inches, in 1823 it became 27 inches by 8 inches and in 1931 it became 28 inches by 9 inches. ... date when most ...
  13. [13]
    Change in stump size: a statistical analysis of its impact on batting
    significant impact, especially regarding spin bowling). But I believe the "forgotten change" was even more significant, namely, the augmentation of the wickets ...
  14. [14]
    Do we really need neutral umpires anymore? - ESPNcricinfo
    Dec 16, 2021 · First, an extra review was available under home umpires, so in theory, players were less selective when taking reviews under home umpires ...
  15. [15]
    That's out! How expert umpires make leg-before-wicket judgements ...
    Apr 17, 2024 · In this study, we explored the explicit LBW decision-making expertise of elite-level cricket umpires (N = 10) via 10 individual semi-structured interviews.
  16. [16]
    What We Remember: The arrival of the DRS - ESPNcricinfo
    Oct 3, 2018 · Palpably, it has encouraged umpires to hand out far more leg-before decisions on the front foot, to the benefit, in particular, of spinners.
  17. [17]
    Cricket's Turning Points: Neutral umpires | ESPNcricinfo
    Apr 16, 2011 · One neutral umpire per Test was appointed on an experimental basis in 1992, and the system was adopted two years later.
  18. [18]
    Umpires' Positioning
    Of course the umpire must stand in line with the wickets and must resists any requests by the bowler to move offline.
  19. [19]
    The Decision Review System: A timeline of events | ESPNcricinfo
    Jun 25, 2012 · March 2009. ICC expands the scope of DRS by including Hot Spot as a tool for decision-making, allowing it to be trialled during the second ...
  20. [20]
    Decision Review System (DRS) | About ICC Cricket
    The Decision Review System (DRS) is a technology-based process for assisting the match officials with their decision-making.Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
  21. [21]
    (PDF) Hawk Eye Technology Used In Cricket - ResearchGate
    Aug 6, 2025 · With all these implementations the system has achieved 99% accuracy. This study analyzed data regarding the DRS decisions from year 2009 to ...
  22. [22]
    DRS technology expensive, unreliable - Niranjan Shah | ESPNcricinfo
    Jun 25, 2011 · The system requires about $60,000 per match," Shah told DNA. "Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply ...Missing: domestic | Show results with:domestic
  23. [23]
    BCCI has no money for DRS in Ranji Trophy final! | Cricket News
    Jun 23, 2022 · The 'cost' factor for not using DRS, which can at least prevent howlers, looks lame when you consider that the BCCI just made a cool Rs 48,390 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  24. [24]
    With DRS absent, umpiring decisions continue to unsettle teams
    Jul 7, 2022 · Implementing the DRS, albeit for the knockout rounds of tournaments, will help eliminate howlers as well as improve decision-making on the field.
  25. [25]
    LBW accounts for 16.61 pc dismissals in DRS era vis-à-vis 14.09 pc ...
    Sep 22, 2024 · But that number saw a substantial spike in the post-DRS era as LBW accounted for nearly 16.61% of the total dismissals in test cricket. ...
  26. [26]
    Are umpires giving more lbws now than they did before the DRS?
    May 6, 2020 · Lbw has become a far more central mode of dismissal for spinners - accounting for roughly 21% of their wickets now, up from 17% pre-DRS - but ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Statistics and the DRS
    26.2% of DRS reviews overturn decisions. Batsmen have 34% success, bowling 20%. 74% are for lbw, 18% for caught behind. 34% of 'out' decisions are overturned.<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    Hawk-Eye is cockeyed, says Bishan Singh Bedi - Times of India
    Jul 26, 2013 · ... decisions was to eliminate human errors with the help of technology. Nothing is wrong with that. The problem lies with the technology itself.
  29. [29]
    Hawk-Eye company publishes analysis of Sachin Tendulkar lbw ...
    Apr 6, 2011 · Hawk-Eye Innovations has defended the accuracy of its tracking technology used during the Cricket World Cup's most controversial umpiring moment.
  30. [30]
    Explained: LBW rules and the controversial umpire's call in DRS
    Mar 21, 2022 · A player will be able to ask the umpire whether a genuine attempt has been made to play the ball before deciding to review an LBW decision. The ...Missing: guidelines | Show results with:guidelines
  31. [31]
    Beyond the Boundary: The Tech Revolution Behind Cricket's Numbers
    May 16, 2025 · The current ball tracking technology uses a combination of ultra-high-definition cameras (capturing over 340 frames per second), sophisticated ...
  32. [32]
    AI Ball Tracking for Sport Analysis - Mercity AI
    AI ball tracking tracks the ball's movement, collision detection, speed, and player interaction, providing valuable data for sports analysis.What Is Ball Tracking · How Does Ball Tracking Work? · State-Of-The-Art Ball...<|separator|>
  33. [33]
    Women's FTP for 2025-29 announced - ICC Cricket
    Nov 4, 2024 · The International Cricket Council has announced a robust women's Future Tours Programme (FTP) for the period 2025-2029.
  34. [34]
    DRS: the three letters playing tricks with cricket's numbers
    Mar 30, 2012 · In Tests this year, 33% of wickets taken by spinners have been lbw. That is twice as many as in 2004, when the figure was 16%. Wherever you look ...<|separator|>
  35. [35]
    'DRS has affected the game more than we thought it would ...
    Feb 14, 2012 · Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye both tell us how accurate they are, but this will verify those claims.. So is it also a test to see which of Hawk-Eye ...
  36. [36]
    Is the DRS a good thing? Yes if you're a fingerspinner, no if you're a ...
    Jun 12, 2020 · Compared to the effect of the 1937 and 1980 amendments, which made lbw dismissals significantly more frequent, the DRS has had no overall effect ...
  37. [37]
    Analysing Test dismissals across the ages | ESPNcricinfo
    Feb 25, 2013 · During the first period about 37% of batsmen were bowled. The figure dropped below 30% soon and remained around this figure until after the WW2.
  38. [38]
    The Numbers Game: Are lbws on the rise? | ESPNcricinfo
    Jun 17, 2011 · The number of lbws per Test has gradually increased too, from around 3.5 per Test in the 1960s and '70s to more than five over the last two ...
  39. [39]
    Marshall's lbw bunny, and a Darling who never got that way
    Dec 28, 2016 · 14.51 Percentage contribution of lbws to all dismissals in Test cricket, which means roughly one in seven dismissals is an lbw. Bowled contributes 21%, and ...
  40. [40]
    TV umpiring slip-ups come under the scanner at Women's World Cup
    Oct 17, 2025 · In this World Cup, there have been 25 successful overturns of on-field decisions in 36 innings - a rate of 0.67 successful overturns per innings ...
  41. [41]
    Statistics | ICC Women's Cricket World Cup, 2025
    Most Runs · SA. Laura Wolvaardt. 571 ; Highest Score Innings · SA. Laura Wolvaardt. 169 ; Best Batting Average · AUS. Ashleigh Gardner. 82.00.