![]() | Leg before wicket is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 10, 2013. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Revised text to add (IMHO) clarity. Added some comment about bat-pad.-- Baggie 11:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Please add:
[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:43, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
>> to any ball pitched outside off stump even if the batsmen's legs were also outside off stump - which has been put into place in some measure since 1970.
I thought it was added in the 1980 code. Shall I change it if this is correct ? Tintin 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It isn't true that if the ball is going over the stumps it can't be out. It has to be at the correct height.
It also isn't true that the path the ball would have taken after it hits the batsman doesn't count. It is one of the major factors in making a decision. For example, if the ball hits the batsman in front of leg stump but is going past the leg stump, it isn't out.
Both of those two things should be changed. Cheers.
It is not technically correct to say that the batsman should not be out if the ball pitches outside leg stump. A legal delivery is one that bounces 'no more than twice.' The LBW law only says that the ball must pitch in line or outside off. It does not say that this condition has to be satisfied more than once in the case of a ball pitching twice. (I've now fixed this by using the word 'only,' i.e. the batsman may not be out if the ball only pitches outside leg.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.40.249 ( talk) 12:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The part about cameras and Hawk-Eye not being used officially is outdated and incorrect. Seems to be written in around 2005, when electronic systems were not yet used. Nowadays there is a third umpire deciding "reviewed" situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.46.206 ( talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
'Cannot' changed to 'should not' which is the term used in the laws of the game. This is not mere semantics, many a batsmen has been given 'out' when the ball has pitched outside leg-stump, been hit with the bat first, going oer the stumps. Franz-kafka 12:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from Sarastro's talk page)
(a) Long before URDS, in the 2002 ICC Champions trophy, the umpire could refer to the third umpire if he had doubts about an lbw. I don't remember remember whether it was used in any other tests/ODIs.
(b) Looking at http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152418.html, an important change is that it reversed the 1935 amendment. Perhaps it is worth a mention. But in the 1980 code "or on the off side of the Striker's wicket" is back.
(c) Perhaps a word on how the law is used for reverse sweeps and switch hits.
(d) "However, there was a clause in the 1744 laws which gave umpires the power to take action if the batsman was "standing unfair to strike" - From a quick check it seems to refer to fielders, not batsmen - "They are sole judges of all hindrances, crossing ye Players in running, and standing unfair to strike, and in any case of hindrances may order a Notch to be scored." Please check this again. Tintin 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't had a proper look at the article yet, but for the "Development of the law" section, you may find "Dates in Cricket History" from the 1978 Wisden useful. (Versions of the article appeared in a number of other Wisden editions over the years, but this is the one that's available online.) See in particular the "EVOLUTION OF THE LAWS OF CRICKET" section, which devotes a subsection to lbw. JH ( talk page) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look now, but so far I haven't got beyond the lead, because IMO it needs a lot of work. I've made a few improvements to the wording, but have the following more substantive points:
JH ( talk page) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
One other thought: the claim at the very end of the lead that the use of technology has led to an increase in lbw dismissals needs a citation to support it. There are probably a few other places in the lead where a citation would be a good idea. JH ( talk page) 09:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the following sentence is correct: "However, the batsman is also lbw if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, it strikes him outside the off stump and would have gone on to hit the wickets". This scenario is already covered by the preceding text. Rather than an "also", I think that what is required is an "except": "However the batsman is not out lbw if the ball strikes him outside the off stump and he has made a genuine attempt to hit the ball (but failed to do so)". What do other people think please? Zin92 ( talk) 06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It is currently stated that "It is assumed that the ball would have continued in a straight line after hitting the batsman, even if it would have bounced before striking the stumps" and that this is as per reference 3. I don't think that this is an accurate cite of reference 3. There is nothing in reference 3 to the ball continuing in a straight line. What do other people think please? Zin92 ( talk) 06:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Resolute ( talk · contribs) 23:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Overall I love the way this is, but any authoritative work on the Laws must surely cite Marylebone Cricket Club, Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011 ISBN 978-0-297-866441 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum-1.
In addition to Law 36 verbatim, it contains 13 photos and some 3000 words of authoritative commentary that explain how umpires should interpret the Law, and is used by all official umpires and scorers in the UK for their training and for reference; for all I know is used much more widely worldwide.
I'm not saying any of the current text needs to change, only that if the article is to be authoritative it must claim to be informed by this book.
Atconsul (
talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
A couple of details about the definition.
The text now says "]. Alternatively". The "]" is a typo. But alternatively to what? The text should mean alternatively to the specific criterion that it hits him in line with the wickets, but is open to interpretation.
In paraphrasing the Law, I think the text now says that the ball needs to *pitch* although the MCC guidelines are cited discussing the case when it doesn't. The ball doesn't have to pitch, and the only way it matters at all is that if it pitches outside leg it's not out.
One case that catches people out here is that if ball hits the batsman first without pitching, but ouside the line of leg stump, that's always not out.
By the way, on the historic side, the MCC guidance on this stems I believe from the modern re-introduction of leg spin as a weapon in Test cricket, and to the Pakistan legspinner Abdul Qadir's series in England in 1982 in particular. After his appeal against Botham at Lords was turned down when everyone agreed the ball had hit the batsman full toss in front of middle, the umpires were unsure if they were supposed to predict whether the ball was a leg break or a googly, a tremendous feat given that none of the England batsmen could do it. This was a big embarassment to HQ, given also the absence of any assumption of goodwill between the protagonist's administrators, an absence that shook the Establishment when an English umpire was later (1987) asked by the visitors to stand down in his own land (he didn't), and that culminated in the nadir of Faisalabad later in the same year with more or less the same cast of characters.
A lot of unnecessary vexation over the years has been caused by using the textual mode of argumentation, so beloved of the legal profession, to discuss, define and explain LBW. The *definition* is not really that hard if expressed in pictures, or the language of logic, and I dare say this is one of Hawkeye's least problematic programming tasks. The ACO (Association of Cricket Officials) published a Flowchart "LBW-WHY NOT?" for training umpires. Unfortunately this claims copyright ACO, but I can say that EVERY LBW question needs to satisfy exactly 7 tests to be out, except for the special case 'first point of impact outside the line of off stump' which requires the extra, eighth test 'was a genuine attempt made to play the ball with the bat?'
Since algorithms aren't copyright, I believe one can freely express it in one's own presentation, thus:
Was there an appeal? | NO -> | Say Nowt | ||
Valid Delivery? | NO -> | Not Out | ||
Ball hitting wicket? | NO -> | Not Out | ||
Hit bat first? | YES -> | Not Out | ||
Pitched outside leg? | YES -> | Not Out | ||
First impact outside leg? | YES -> | Not Out | ||
First impact outside off? | YES -> | Genuine attempt to play ball with bat? | YES -> | Not Out |
NO -> | !!OUT!! | |||
!!OUT!! |
Atconsul (
talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
And, having laboured for a long time trying to write a definition that is both correct, precise and intelligible to non-cricketers, I am very aware that it is not easy to write about. I would love to use some images, but copyright is the usual problem. Hence the suggestion to link to the BBC images for anyone who wants a more visual explanation. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
My last word on this, for we are going round in circles and I suspect neither of us is getting, or will get, the other's point. If you see problems, WP:SOFIXIT or present a concrete sourced wording here for discussion. Please bear in mind this is a Featured article which has been reviewed by several users, including cricket specialists, and any huge changes would need discussing. Otherwise, we are going nowhere fast. I don't particularly want to get into a philosophical debate here, so I will not reply further unless some practical changes are made or discussed. Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Atconsul ( talk) 21:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Leg before wicket (lbw) is one of the ways in which a batsman can be dismissed in the sport of cricket. The basis of the law is that, following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire may rule a batsman out lbw 76.218.104.120 ( talk) 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The article covers the use of Hawkeye in the Desicion Review System (DRS) and also says that is regarded as 100 % accurate. This last part is not the case in actual use. Hawkeye is regarded as having an error and as a result half the diameter of the ball belongs to the umpire during any DRS review.
For example say, following an appeal for a wicket, the umpire calls, "Not out!, the fielding side calls for a review. During the review, Hawkeye clearly shows that the ball would have hit (say) off stump, but half the ball's diameter or less was attempting to occupy the same space as the stump, the umpires original decision of "Not out" will stand. The reverse situation is also the case if a finger is raised following the appeal.
The article also fails to explain why the LBW law is as complex as it is. It is based on the simple philosophy that the batsman has to stand somewhere. The batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches on the leg side of the stumps because that is where he has to stand to guard his wicket. Similarly, the batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches outside off stump because he has to step in front of the wicket in order to play such a ball (providing that he is genuinely attempting to do so). 86.140.30.40 ( talk) 07:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The WP Front Page has "...and wrong lbw decisions have sometimes caused crowd trouble." For some reason the word "wrong" has been added, which is not in the article. In the context in which the rules are not fully understood, a correct lbw could equally have the same effect. Of course, this textual matter won't matter after today. Davidships ( talk) 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions that (a) the batsman is not out if the ball pitches outside leg and (b) if it strikes the batsman outside off and he or she wasn't offering a stroke. Fine. But what if it strikes the batsman outside leg , without pitching (I.e. on a full toss). One could infer that since neither of the mentioned exceptions are satisfied, it is out. But is that so? I genuinely don t know and It would satisfy my curiosity if the article covered that aspect t... — Amakuru ( talk) 00:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
From the lead: "intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat. "
The bat is not part of the striker's person. This should be clarified to reflect that the gloves on hands holding the bat are the only part of the batsman on which they can be hit to prevent being correctly given out. I would change it but I can't think of how to write this concisely. Hack ( talk) 08:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leg before wicket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Common usage of the LBW rule is to capitalize when referring to the rule, but when referring to scorecard it is not capitalized and reads as lbw. If the discussion is about how many lbws in a game, for example. But most media refers to the rule by the acronym LBW. When writing it out, should it also be capitalized as Leg Before Wicket as is normal with writing out acronyms?
See:
vs.
Brett Johnston ( talk) 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Leg before wicket is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 10, 2013. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Revised text to add (IMHO) clarity. Added some comment about bat-pad.-- Baggie 11:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Please add:
[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:43, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
>> to any ball pitched outside off stump even if the batsmen's legs were also outside off stump - which has been put into place in some measure since 1970.
I thought it was added in the 1980 code. Shall I change it if this is correct ? Tintin 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It isn't true that if the ball is going over the stumps it can't be out. It has to be at the correct height.
It also isn't true that the path the ball would have taken after it hits the batsman doesn't count. It is one of the major factors in making a decision. For example, if the ball hits the batsman in front of leg stump but is going past the leg stump, it isn't out.
Both of those two things should be changed. Cheers.
It is not technically correct to say that the batsman should not be out if the ball pitches outside leg stump. A legal delivery is one that bounces 'no more than twice.' The LBW law only says that the ball must pitch in line or outside off. It does not say that this condition has to be satisfied more than once in the case of a ball pitching twice. (I've now fixed this by using the word 'only,' i.e. the batsman may not be out if the ball only pitches outside leg.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.40.249 ( talk) 12:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The part about cameras and Hawk-Eye not being used officially is outdated and incorrect. Seems to be written in around 2005, when electronic systems were not yet used. Nowadays there is a third umpire deciding "reviewed" situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.46.206 ( talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
'Cannot' changed to 'should not' which is the term used in the laws of the game. This is not mere semantics, many a batsmen has been given 'out' when the ball has pitched outside leg-stump, been hit with the bat first, going oer the stumps. Franz-kafka 12:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from Sarastro's talk page)
(a) Long before URDS, in the 2002 ICC Champions trophy, the umpire could refer to the third umpire if he had doubts about an lbw. I don't remember remember whether it was used in any other tests/ODIs.
(b) Looking at http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152418.html, an important change is that it reversed the 1935 amendment. Perhaps it is worth a mention. But in the 1980 code "or on the off side of the Striker's wicket" is back.
(c) Perhaps a word on how the law is used for reverse sweeps and switch hits.
(d) "However, there was a clause in the 1744 laws which gave umpires the power to take action if the batsman was "standing unfair to strike" - From a quick check it seems to refer to fielders, not batsmen - "They are sole judges of all hindrances, crossing ye Players in running, and standing unfair to strike, and in any case of hindrances may order a Notch to be scored." Please check this again. Tintin 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't had a proper look at the article yet, but for the "Development of the law" section, you may find "Dates in Cricket History" from the 1978 Wisden useful. (Versions of the article appeared in a number of other Wisden editions over the years, but this is the one that's available online.) See in particular the "EVOLUTION OF THE LAWS OF CRICKET" section, which devotes a subsection to lbw. JH ( talk page) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look now, but so far I haven't got beyond the lead, because IMO it needs a lot of work. I've made a few improvements to the wording, but have the following more substantive points:
JH ( talk page) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
One other thought: the claim at the very end of the lead that the use of technology has led to an increase in lbw dismissals needs a citation to support it. There are probably a few other places in the lead where a citation would be a good idea. JH ( talk page) 09:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the following sentence is correct: "However, the batsman is also lbw if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, it strikes him outside the off stump and would have gone on to hit the wickets". This scenario is already covered by the preceding text. Rather than an "also", I think that what is required is an "except": "However the batsman is not out lbw if the ball strikes him outside the off stump and he has made a genuine attempt to hit the ball (but failed to do so)". What do other people think please? Zin92 ( talk) 06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It is currently stated that "It is assumed that the ball would have continued in a straight line after hitting the batsman, even if it would have bounced before striking the stumps" and that this is as per reference 3. I don't think that this is an accurate cite of reference 3. There is nothing in reference 3 to the ball continuing in a straight line. What do other people think please? Zin92 ( talk) 06:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Resolute ( talk · contribs) 23:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Overall I love the way this is, but any authoritative work on the Laws must surely cite Marylebone Cricket Club, Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011 ISBN 978-0-297-866441 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum-1.
In addition to Law 36 verbatim, it contains 13 photos and some 3000 words of authoritative commentary that explain how umpires should interpret the Law, and is used by all official umpires and scorers in the UK for their training and for reference; for all I know is used much more widely worldwide.
I'm not saying any of the current text needs to change, only that if the article is to be authoritative it must claim to be informed by this book.
Atconsul (
talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
A couple of details about the definition.
The text now says "]. Alternatively". The "]" is a typo. But alternatively to what? The text should mean alternatively to the specific criterion that it hits him in line with the wickets, but is open to interpretation.
In paraphrasing the Law, I think the text now says that the ball needs to *pitch* although the MCC guidelines are cited discussing the case when it doesn't. The ball doesn't have to pitch, and the only way it matters at all is that if it pitches outside leg it's not out.
One case that catches people out here is that if ball hits the batsman first without pitching, but ouside the line of leg stump, that's always not out.
By the way, on the historic side, the MCC guidance on this stems I believe from the modern re-introduction of leg spin as a weapon in Test cricket, and to the Pakistan legspinner Abdul Qadir's series in England in 1982 in particular. After his appeal against Botham at Lords was turned down when everyone agreed the ball had hit the batsman full toss in front of middle, the umpires were unsure if they were supposed to predict whether the ball was a leg break or a googly, a tremendous feat given that none of the England batsmen could do it. This was a big embarassment to HQ, given also the absence of any assumption of goodwill between the protagonist's administrators, an absence that shook the Establishment when an English umpire was later (1987) asked by the visitors to stand down in his own land (he didn't), and that culminated in the nadir of Faisalabad later in the same year with more or less the same cast of characters.
A lot of unnecessary vexation over the years has been caused by using the textual mode of argumentation, so beloved of the legal profession, to discuss, define and explain LBW. The *definition* is not really that hard if expressed in pictures, or the language of logic, and I dare say this is one of Hawkeye's least problematic programming tasks. The ACO (Association of Cricket Officials) published a Flowchart "LBW-WHY NOT?" for training umpires. Unfortunately this claims copyright ACO, but I can say that EVERY LBW question needs to satisfy exactly 7 tests to be out, except for the special case 'first point of impact outside the line of off stump' which requires the extra, eighth test 'was a genuine attempt made to play the ball with the bat?'
Since algorithms aren't copyright, I believe one can freely express it in one's own presentation, thus:
Was there an appeal? | NO -> | Say Nowt | ||
Valid Delivery? | NO -> | Not Out | ||
Ball hitting wicket? | NO -> | Not Out | ||
Hit bat first? | YES -> | Not Out | ||
Pitched outside leg? | YES -> | Not Out | ||
First impact outside leg? | YES -> | Not Out | ||
First impact outside off? | YES -> | Genuine attempt to play ball with bat? | YES -> | Not Out |
NO -> | !!OUT!! | |||
!!OUT!! |
Atconsul (
talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
And, having laboured for a long time trying to write a definition that is both correct, precise and intelligible to non-cricketers, I am very aware that it is not easy to write about. I would love to use some images, but copyright is the usual problem. Hence the suggestion to link to the BBC images for anyone who wants a more visual explanation. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
My last word on this, for we are going round in circles and I suspect neither of us is getting, or will get, the other's point. If you see problems, WP:SOFIXIT or present a concrete sourced wording here for discussion. Please bear in mind this is a Featured article which has been reviewed by several users, including cricket specialists, and any huge changes would need discussing. Otherwise, we are going nowhere fast. I don't particularly want to get into a philosophical debate here, so I will not reply further unless some practical changes are made or discussed. Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Atconsul ( talk) 21:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Leg before wicket (lbw) is one of the ways in which a batsman can be dismissed in the sport of cricket. The basis of the law is that, following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire may rule a batsman out lbw 76.218.104.120 ( talk) 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The article covers the use of Hawkeye in the Desicion Review System (DRS) and also says that is regarded as 100 % accurate. This last part is not the case in actual use. Hawkeye is regarded as having an error and as a result half the diameter of the ball belongs to the umpire during any DRS review.
For example say, following an appeal for a wicket, the umpire calls, "Not out!, the fielding side calls for a review. During the review, Hawkeye clearly shows that the ball would have hit (say) off stump, but half the ball's diameter or less was attempting to occupy the same space as the stump, the umpires original decision of "Not out" will stand. The reverse situation is also the case if a finger is raised following the appeal.
The article also fails to explain why the LBW law is as complex as it is. It is based on the simple philosophy that the batsman has to stand somewhere. The batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches on the leg side of the stumps because that is where he has to stand to guard his wicket. Similarly, the batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches outside off stump because he has to step in front of the wicket in order to play such a ball (providing that he is genuinely attempting to do so). 86.140.30.40 ( talk) 07:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The WP Front Page has "...and wrong lbw decisions have sometimes caused crowd trouble." For some reason the word "wrong" has been added, which is not in the article. In the context in which the rules are not fully understood, a correct lbw could equally have the same effect. Of course, this textual matter won't matter after today. Davidships ( talk) 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions that (a) the batsman is not out if the ball pitches outside leg and (b) if it strikes the batsman outside off and he or she wasn't offering a stroke. Fine. But what if it strikes the batsman outside leg , without pitching (I.e. on a full toss). One could infer that since neither of the mentioned exceptions are satisfied, it is out. But is that so? I genuinely don t know and It would satisfy my curiosity if the article covered that aspect t... — Amakuru ( talk) 00:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
From the lead: "intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat. "
The bat is not part of the striker's person. This should be clarified to reflect that the gloves on hands holding the bat are the only part of the batsman on which they can be hit to prevent being correctly given out. I would change it but I can't think of how to write this concisely. Hack ( talk) 08:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leg before wicket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Common usage of the LBW rule is to capitalize when referring to the rule, but when referring to scorecard it is not capitalized and reads as lbw. If the discussion is about how many lbws in a game, for example. But most media refers to the rule by the acronym LBW. When writing it out, should it also be capitalized as Leg Before Wicket as is normal with writing out acronyms?
See:
vs.
Brett Johnston ( talk) 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)