In cricket, the phrase “the batsman didn’t offer a shot” means the batter made no attempt to hit the ball with their bat. This usually means the batter either left the ball completely alone or tried to block it with their legs or body.
This matters because of the Leg Before Wicket (LBW) rule. If a ball would have hit the stumps, but the batter’s leg or body stops it, the batter can be given out LBW. However, the specific rules change slightly if the batter “didn’t offer a shot”:
- Normal LBW: The ball must be hitting the stumps between the wickets (the stumps on either side of the stumps behind the batter).
- LBW with no shot offered: The ball can be hitting the stumps anywhere between the wickets or outside the line of the off-stump.
Essentially, if the batter tries to play a shot and misses, they are given more leeway, and the ball has to be hitting the stumps more centrally to be out LBW. But if they make no attempt to play the ball, the area where the ball can hit them and still be out LBW is widened.
Why does this rule exist?
This rule exists to prevent batters from simply blocking everything with their pads without any risk. It encourages batters to try and play shots rather than just relying on their pads for protection.
Let me know if you’d like any further clarification or have more questions!
Thankyou! I’ve been watching test cricket (as an Aussie) since 1974, and still get confused about this rule, and get into arguments with people about it. Your explanation for the “why” is credible, ie. so that the batsman can’t just block on the off side, similar to a bowler being prevented from bowling outside leg, with the “pitching outside leg” rule in favour of the batsman. Both are to keep the game moving. If you remember the “why”, it’s easier to remember the rule!
I looked this up today because I was commenting on this video of ” 8 horrendous umpiring errors made during the 2008 SCG Test”, and #7 looked to me to be a valid LBW, given this rule. https://youtu.be/l2GuRJkRoC8?si=H4hEk5-Ssjn2X14f&t=134