Why LBW percentage has gone up in Test since the dawn of DRs era? A complete analysis from Batters and Umpires's point of view.
Leg Before Wicket, commonly referred to as "LBW," is a form of dismissal that has foreseen a plethora of controversial moments since its introduction. This mode of dismissal has acted as a strong point of contention between the players and the match officials during the pre-DRS days.
Unlike other modes of dismissal, LBW is an estimation-based dismissal, and a myriad of factors need to be taken into account while adjudging a batter out. According to the MCC, five factors, as laid out below, need to be satisfied before an umpire can adjudge a batter leg before wicket.
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
36.1.2 the ball, if it is not intercepted full-pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker’s wicket
36.1.3 the ball not having previously touched his/her bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full-pitch or after pitching, with any part of his/her person
36.1.4 the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails, either is between wicket and wicket or if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with the bat, is between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.
36.1.5 but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.
All boxes above need to be ticked before a batter can be given out under this mode of dismissal. Perhaps the most crucial point to consider is 36.1.5, which refers to an umpire’s assessment of whether the ball would go on to hit the stumps. Umpires involved in adjudicating an LBW dismissal may differ in the way they go about assessing the above-mentioned parameters. Problems arise because the umpire needs not only to establish what has happened but also to speculate over what might have occurred.
Since the decision-making involves an umpire’s judgement, the decision from umpire to umpire can vary and, in most cases, may not be consistent. For instance, umpires can undoubtedly differ in judging the trajectory or the path of the ball upon impact or whether it would go on to hit the stumps. But the use of technology dispels such notions regardless of what an umpire may think on that given day, which is why we are starting to see a surge in LBW decisions going in the bowler’s favour accurately post-DRS era.
Cricket has 10 known forms of dismissals, where LBW is regarded as the third most common form of dismissal after bowled and caught. Considered as one of the most common modes of dismissal, out of 78949 recorded dismissals in Test cricket as of September 17, 2024, LBW alone has accounted for 11630 dismissals. Here is an all-format breakdown of LBW dismissals:
Tests: 14.73%
ODIs: 10.32%
T20Is: 7.86%
The DRS (Decision Review System) was introduced and was first seen in action on a trial basis on July 23, 2008, during a Test match between India and Sri Lanka. Back then, the system had some limitations and lacked some advanced functions that we know today, such as ball tracking and ultraedge.
Nevertheless, after some advancements, the DRS was officially deployed in full capacity during the New Zealand vs Pakistan series in November 2009. The introduction of DRS saw many decisions going in favour of the bowling side, most notably LBW. We have seen as many as 3294 LBW decisions going in favour of the bowling side since the full implementation of DRS in 2009.
It is worth mentioning that the total percentage of LBW dismissals during the pre-DRS era amounted to 14.09% in Test cricket. 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. Although the share of LBW dismissals post-DRS only increases fractionally, had there been no DRS, we would not have recorded those 3000-odd LBW dismissals in international cricket.
So why do we see a jump in LBW dismissals after the advent of DRS, and what factors are driving the surge? We look at the below reasons to understand the underlying factors better. But before we delve much further, it is imperative to understand what has changed from the batter and umpire’s point of view since the introduction of DRS.
Batter’s’ view into consideration
Long way forward: On the grounds of excessive height, umpires could always be seen coming to the rescue of the batters during the pre-DRS era. The general notion at the time was that the ball had to travel a long distance after impact, hence creating a bit of uncertainty in the umpire’s mind. This would ultimately result in the umpire ruling a decision in favour of the batter. Batters would also get away with deliberately padding the ball away, a tactic that was predominately used to smother the excessive turn.
But in this day and age, such tactics have now become obsolete means for the batter to defend their wicket. The technology is quick to prove an umpire wrong. Even if a batter comes a long way forward, if the trajectory or the path of the delivery goes straight on to hit the stumps, then the batter can be adjudged LBW.
Impact above knee roll: Back in the day, any ball that would go on to make an impact above the knee roll was deemed to be too high. The height of the knee roll exceeded the length of the stumps, and it was a general consensus to not give a batter out in such cases as there were high chances of it passing over the stumps.
However, with the advent of DRS, umpires can once again be proven wrong. Shorter batters have a limited reach, and the position of their knee roll may just be below stump height. Even if the impact is above knee roll and ball tracking shows wickets hitting on the full, the batter is liable to be dismissed LBW. Hence, with the evolution of DRS, being struck above the knee roll doesn’t automatically come to their rescue any longer.
Umpire’s view into consideration
Left-arm bowler to right-hand batter and vice versa: If a right-handed batter faces a left-arm bowler from over the wicket or a left-handed batter faces a right-arm bowler from over the wicket, the angle created often makes it difficult for the umpire to give a batter out under this dismissal. Moreover, umpires also needed to work out where the ball may have pitched accurately. Such considerations would cause uncertainty in the umpire’s mind and, as a result, would refrain from giving the batter out LBW.
Back then, it was considered a good practice not to give a batter out from over the wicket angle as there would be a greater possibility of the ball pitching outside leg. As a matter of fact, the law does not permit any batter to be out LBW if the ball pitches outside the leg stump. However, the use of technology has demonstrated that the ball only has to pitch on the leg stump line and go on to hit the leg stump on the full.
Time and again, umpires have been proven wrong and were advised to reverse their decision in favour of the fielding side. During India’s first Test against England in 2018, Aleem Dar had turned down an appeal for Sam Curran & Co. when he trapped Vijay on his front pad. From the naked eye, it appeared very legside-ish, and Dar immediately walked away from his mark, indicating that the fielding team did not have such a strong case.
However, upon review, England were delighted to see that the ball just pitched in line and would have gone on to hit the middle and leg stump. An experienced Aleem Dar getting his calls wrong goes to show how many such decisions were erroneously made when there was no DRS available.
Not sure, stick to not out: In the good old days, umpires often erred to the side of caution and deemed the batter not out in case of tight LBW calls. The benefit of the doubt would go to the batter even though he/she could have justifiably been dismissed. This loophole back in the day unknowingly came to the rescue of numerous batters.
But the batters are no longer that fortunate anymore, as the fielding side now has the option to challenge an on-field decision. Even if the on-field umpire lacks clarity in such close LBW calls, the footage can quickly be checked to reach a correct decision, thus favouring the bowling side more often than not.
Read More: Gambhir, Kohli bury the hatchet; stress importance of Tests & developing culture of competitiveness
Other factors
Subsequent advancement of DRS technology allowed greater visibility into some of the grey areas of LBW decision-making. The ability to accurately project the path of the delivery through ball tracking, provisions of more camera angles, and the use of technologies such as snicko, ultraedge, and hotspot to detect the involvement of the bat resulted in accurate on-field decision-making consistently. As a result, faith in the technology was restored, and more and more teams eventually started accepting it.
As a matter of fact, India became only the last full member nation to fully adopt the DRS in a home Test series against England in 2016. Since that Test series, the share of LBW decisions going in favour of team India amounted to 169, i.e., 14.73% of their total dismissals. That number would have been a lot lower had there been no DRS in place.
In the present-day DRS era, we are not only seeing a spike in more LBW dismissals, but the accuracy of these dismissals has also gone up. In the pre-DRS era, the on-field umpires had absolute authority in making decisions that affected the game. Regardless of the consequences and reaction on or off the field, the umpire’s decision was regarded as full and final, and no party had any right to object to it. The same notion was applied to adjudicating LBW dismissals.
What an umpire felt at that particular moment played a key role in reaching a decision. But with the advent of DRS technology, what the on-field umpire thinks is no longer entirely relevant in the current context of the game. Technology has a big say, and the authority of the on-field umpires can be challenged with the help of it. This technology innovation can further result in several LBW decisions going in favour of the bowling team that would normally not have happened had there been no DRS.
Comments