LBW decisions are the bane of every umpire’s life. Was it too high? Did it pitch outside leg stump? A wrong decision could have the press out for an umpire’s blood and yet appeal after appeal flood in from bowler after bowler, often without a chance of success.

It could be considered a form of sledging to continually appeal for a wicket without genuine belief the batsman is out. And appeals have been used as a delay tactic by many a side hoping the batting side will take too long to reach their winning target and hold the match to a draw. So why isn’t there a limit on the number of appeals for LBW and caught behind a bowler can make?

As far as caught behinds go, it should not be the decision of the bowler whether or not the batsman is out. More often than not his view of proceedings is obscured by the batsman and he will be guessing on little evidence. The wicket-keeper, on the other hand, should have the best idea whether or not a ball has carried and should be allowed to appeal whenever he believes the batsman is out.

'The problem lies in certain players appealing wildly even when their ball pitched a mile outside leg stump and flew over the batman's head'


With caught behinds the rightful territory of the wicket-keeper, LBWs are undoubtedly the domain of the bowler. The problem lies in certain players appealing wildly even when their ball pitched a mile outside leg stump and flew over the batman’s head. Is a limit to the number of appeals a bowler can make the answer?

Despite the availability of technology for the third umpire, most decisions are still made by the on-field umpires. Perhaps if the third umpire was given power to intervene on these decisions, rather than needing to be asked for an opinion by his on field colleagues, the incidences of unfair dismissals and missed chances would fall considerably, along with excessive appealing. Why would any player appeal for a dodgy dismissal when the third umpire has a close-up replay to put his colleagues straight?

A limit on the number of appeals a bowler can make is not a particularly feasible suggestion. For one, the proportions of wickets which are adjudged LBW varies considerably between matches. If a bowler is allowed 20 appeals per innings, in an innings with two true LBWs he would be allowed five dismissals per wicket. But in an innings with five batsmen being given out LBW, that number would drop to two, leaving the bowler in the latter innings at a disadvantage.

Although excessive appealing can be detrimental to the game, there are better ways to tackle it than limiting appeals. If the umpires can prove that they will pick up on LBW dismissals, the appealing will reduce as a result.