Editing Leg before wicket (section)

==Trends and perception==
[[File:Adhikari out LBW to W. Johnston for 0 (JPEG).jpeg|thumb|240px|[[Hemu Adhikari]] is given out lbw to [[Bill Johnston (cricketer)|Bill Johnston]], [[Indian cricket team in Australia in 1947–48|India v. Australia, 1947–48]]]]
A study in 2011 by Douglas Miller shows that in English [[County Championship|county cricket]], the proportion of wickets to fall lbw has increased steadily since the First World War. In the 1920s, around 11% of wickets were lbw but this rose to 14% in the 1930s. Between 1946 and 1970, the proportion was approximately 11% but subsequently increased until reaching almost 19% in the decade before 2010.<ref>Miller, p. 1.</ref> Miller also states that captains of county teams were statistically more likely to receive the benefit of lbw decisions—less likely to be out lbw when batting and more likely to dismiss batters lbw when bowling.<ref>Miller, pp. 9–10.</ref> For many years, county captains submitted end-of-match reports on the umpires; as umpires were professionals whose careers could be affected, captains consequently received leeway whether batting or bowling. Before 1963, when the status was abolished in county cricket, umpires were also more lenient towards [[Amateur status in first-class cricket|amateur]] cricketers. Amateurs administered English cricket, and offending one could end an umpire's career.<ref name=Marshall>Marshall, pp. 6–7.</ref> Elsewhere in the world, lbws are more statistically likely in matches taking place on the Indian subcontinent. However, batters from the subcontinent were less likely to be lbw wherever they played in the world.<ref name=Ringrose911/>

Teams that toured other countries often became frustrated by lbws given against them;<ref name=crisis/> there was often an assumption of national bias by home umpires against visiting teams.<ref name=Fraser118-20/> Several studies investigating this perception have suggested that home batters are sometimes less likely than visiting batters to be lbw.<ref name=Fraser118-20/><ref name=studies>Crowe and Middeldorp, pp. 255–56.</ref><ref>Ringrose, p. 904.</ref> However, the data is based on lbw decisions awarded, not on the success-rate of appeals to the umpire.<ref>Crowe and Middeldorp, pp. 258–61.</ref> Fraser points out that it is impossible to determine from these studies if any of the decisions were wrong, particularly as the lbw law can have different interpretations, or if other factors such as pitch conditions and technique were involved.<ref name=Fraser118-20>Fraser, pp. 118–20.</ref> A 2006 study examined the effect that neutral umpires had on the rate of lbws.{{refn|From the early 1990s, one of the two umpires in many Tests was from a neutral country, and this became a requirement in 1995; after 2002, both umpires had to be neutral. During 2020, this was revised due to the Coronavirus Pandemic such that home umpries could be used, but each team had an extra review to use the technology<ref name=Ringrose/>|group=notes}} Although the reasons were again ambiguous,<ref name=Ringrose>Ringrose, pp. 903, 905.</ref> it found that lbws increased slightly under neutral umpires regardless of team or location.<ref name=Ringrose911>Ringrose, p. 911.</ref>

Among those who do not follow cricket, the law has the reputation of being extremely difficult to understand, of equivalent complexity to [[Offside (association football)|association football's offside rule]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/6125026.stm|title=LBW explained|publisher=BBC Sport |access-date=5 March 2012|date=8 November 2006}}</ref> Owing to the difficulty of its interpretation, lbw is regarded by critics as the most controversial of the laws but also a yardstick by which an umpire's abilities are judged.<ref name=crisis>{{Cite web| last = Nasim |first = Rafi| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/94702.html|title = LBW – The cause of crisis in cricket | publisher = ESPNCricinfo |date  = 27 September 2000 |access-date = 6 March 2012}}</ref><ref name=F116>Fraser, p. 116.</ref> In his book ''Cricket and the Law: The Man in White Is Always Right'', David Fraser writes that umpires' lbw decisions are frequently criticised and "arguments about bias and incompetence in adjudication inform almost every discussion about lbw decisions".<ref name=F116/> Problems arise because the umpire has not only to establish what has happened but also to speculate over what might have occurred. Controversial aspects of lbw decisions include the umpire having to determine whether the ball pitched outside leg stump, and in certain circumstances whether the batter intended to hit the ball or leave it alone.<ref>Fraser, p. 117.</ref> Umpires are frequently criticised for their lbw decisions by players, commentators and spectators.<ref>Fraser, pp. 117–18.</ref> Historically, trouble ranging from protests and arguments to crowd demonstrations occasionally arose from disputed decisions.<ref name=Fraser118-20/> For example, a prolonged crowd disturbance, in which items were thrown onto the playing field and the match was delayed, took place when [[Mohammad Azharuddin]] was adjudged lbw during a 1996 [[One Day International]] in India.<ref>{{Cite web| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/151347.html|title = Titan Cup: Third Qualifying Match. India v Australia | work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1998 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 26 March 2013}}</ref>