Editing Leg before wicket (section)

===Effects of technology===
Since 1993, the proportion of lbws in each English season has risen steadily. According to cricket historian Douglas Miller, the percentage of lbw dismissals increased after broadcasters incorporated ball-tracking technology such as [[Hawk-Eye]] into their television coverage of matches. Miller writes: "With the passage of time and the adoption of Hawkeye into other sports, together with presentations demonstrating its accuracy, cricket followers seem gradually to have accepted its predictions. Replay analyses have shown that a greater proportion of balls striking an outstretched leg go on to hit the wicket than had once been expected."<ref name=M3/> He also suggests that umpires have been influenced by such evidence; their greater understanding of which deliveries are likely to hit the stumps has made them more likely to rule out batters who are standing further away from the stumps.<ref>Miller, pp. 3–4.</ref> This trend is replicated in international cricket, where the increasing use of technology in reviewing decisions has altered the attitude of umpires. Spin bowlers in particular win far more appeals for lbw.<ref name=Richardson>{{cite web|last = Dobell |first = George | url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/553178.html| title = DRS has affected the game more than we thought it would| publisher = ESPNCricinfo| date = 14 February 2012 |access-date = 7 March 2012}}</ref> However, the use of on-field technology has proved controversial; some critics regard it as more reliable than human judgement, while others believe that the umpire is better placed to make the decision.<ref>Fraser, pp. 121–22.</ref>

The [[International Cricket Council]] (ICC), responsible for running the game worldwide, conducted a trial in 2002 where lbw appeals could be referred to a match official, the [[third umpire]], to review on television replays.<ref name=2002trial/> The third umpire could only use technology to determine where the ball had pitched and if the batter hit the ball with his/her bat.<ref>Fraser, p. 122.</ref> The ICC judged the experiment unsuccessful and did not pursue it.<ref name=2002trial>{{cite news| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/4163458.stm| title = Cricket for beginners| publisher = BBC Sport| access-date = 9 March 2012| date=23 August 2005}}</ref> More trials followed in 2006, although ball-tracking technology remained unavailable to match officials.<ref name=RichardsonTribune>{{cite news| url = http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060507/sports.htm#21| title = Players can appeal to third umpire| newspaper = The Tribune| location = Chandigarh| date = 6 May 2006| access-date = 9 March 2012| archive-date = 25 December 2018| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181225013120/https://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060507/sports.htm#21| url-status = dead}}</ref> After a further series of trials, in 2009 the [[Umpire Decision Review System]] (DRS) was brought into international cricket where teams could refer the on-field decisions of umpires to a third umpire who had access to television replays and technology such as ball tracking.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/436290.html| title = Official debut for enhanced review system| date = 23 November 2009 | publisher = ESPNCricinfo| access-date = 7 March 2012}}</ref> According to the ICC's general manager, [[Dave Richardson (South African cricketer)|Dave Richardson]], DRS increased the frequency with which umpires awarded lbw decisions. In a 2012 interview, he said: "Umpires may have realised that if they give someone out and DRS shows it was not out, then their decision can be rectified. So they might, I suppose, have the courage of their convictions a bit more and take a less conservative approach to giving the batter out. I think if we're totally honest, DRS has affected the game slightly more than we thought it would."<ref name=RichardsonTribune/>

Critics of the system suggest that rules for the use of DRS have created an inconsistency of approach to lbw decisions depending on the circumstances of the referral.<ref>{{cite news| last = Selvey | first = Mike | url = https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/feb/04/younus-khan-azhar-ali-england-udrs| title = DRS is a friend to nobody—for the good of the game it needs a rethink| date = 4 February 2012 | work = The Guardian | access-date = 7 March 2012 | location=London}}</ref> Opponents also doubt that the ball-tracking technology used in deciding lbws is reliable enough, but the ICC state that tests have shown the system to be 100% accurate.<ref name=Wilson>{{cite news|last=Wilson|first=Andy|title=India refuse to accept umpire decision review system despite new pressure|url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jun/25/india-decision-review-system-cricket|access-date=26 March 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=25 June 2012|location=London}}</ref> The [[Board of Control for Cricket in India]] (BCCI) initially declined to use DRS in matches involving India owing to their concerns regarding the ball-tracking technology. Early DRS trials were conducted during India matches, and several problems arose over lbws, particularly as the equipment was not as advanced as it later became.<ref>{{cite web|title=BCCI a 'long way' from accepting DRS – Richardson|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/626310.html|publisher=ESPNCricinfo|access-date=26 March 2013|date=22 March 2013}}</ref> The BCCI believed the technology is unreliable and open to manipulation.<ref>{{cite web|last=Gollapudi|first=Nagraj|title=India threaten pull-out over DRS|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/602944.html|publisher=ESPNCricinfo|access-date=26 March 2013|date=31 January 2013}}</ref> However, as of  2016 they have accepted it.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/BCCI-finally-relents-on-DRS/article16078067.ece|title=BCCI finally relents on DRS|newspaper=The Hindu|date=22 October 2016|via=www.thehindu.com}}</ref>