Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire may rule a batter out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was instead intercepted by any part of the batsman's body (except the hand(s) holding the bat).

Following a number of failed proposals for reform, in 1935 the law was expanded, such that batters could be dismissed lbw even if the ball pitched outside the line of off stump.

In his 1995 survey of cricket laws, Gerald Brodribb states: "No dismissal has produced so much argument as lbw; it has caused trouble from its earliest days".

[1] Owing to its complexity, the law is widely misunderstood among the general public and has proven controversial among spectators, administrators and commentators; lbw decisions have sometimes caused crowd trouble.

Such tactics were criticised by writers and a revision of the laws in 1774 ruled that the batter was out if he deliberately stopped the ball from hitting the wicket with his leg.

In 1839 the MCC, by then responsible for drafting the Laws of Cricket, endorsed the latter interpretation and ruled the batter out lbw if the ball pitched in between the wickets and would have hit the stumps.

Criticism of this practice was heightened by the increased quality and reliability of cricket pitches, which made batting easier, led to higher scores and created a perceived imbalance in the game.

[16] Further proposals included one in which the intent of the batter was taken into account, but no laws were changed and the MCC merely issued a condemnation of the practice of using pads for defence.

[17] Further discussion on altering the law took place in 1899, when several prominent cricketers supported an amendment similar to the 1888 proposal: the batter would be out if the ball would have hit the wicket, where it pitched was irrelevant.

[18] At a Special General Meeting of the MCC in 1902, Alfred Lyttelton formally proposed this amendment; the motion was supported by 259 votes to 188, but failed to secure the two-thirds majority required to change the laws.

As evidence that pad-play was increasing and needed to be curtailed, he cited the growing number of wickets which were falling lbw: the proportion rose from 2% of dismissals in 1870 to 6% in 1890, and 12% in 1923.

[22] Bowlers grew increasingly frustrated with pad-play and the extent to which batters refused to play shots at bowling directed outside the off stump, simply allowing it to pass by.

The English fast bowler Harold Larwood responded by targeting leg stump, frequently hitting the batter with the ball in the process.

[25] At the height of the Bodyline controversy in 1933, Donald Bradman, the leading Australian batter and primary target of the English bowlers, wrote to the MCC recommending an alteration of the lbw law to create more exciting games.

[22] Several leading batters opposed the new law, including the professional Herbert Sutcliffe, known as an exponent of pad-play, and amateurs Errol Holmes and Bob Wyatt.

[22] According to Gerald Brodribb, in his survey and history of the Laws, the change produced more "enterprising", exciting cricket but any alteration in outlook was halted by the Second World War.

When the sport resumed in 1946, batters were out of practice and the amended lbw law played into the hands of off spin and inswing bowlers, who began to dominate county cricket.

[32] The new law continued to provoke debate among writers and cricketers; many former players claimed that the alteration had caused a deterioration in batting and reduced the number of shots played on the off side.

Walk on to any of the first-class grounds at any time tomorrow and the chances are that you will see the wicketkeeper standing back and a medium pace bowler in action ... there is little doubt that the game, as a spectacle, is less attractive than it was.

[36] In an effort to discourage pad-play and encourage leg spin bowling, a new variant of the lbw law was introduced, initially in Australia and the West Indies in the 1969–70 season, then in England for 1970.

[36] This revision omitted the requirement that the impact should be in line with the wickets,[36] but meant that any batter playing a shot could not be out if the ball pitched outside off stump, in contrast to the 1935 law.

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.

[43] 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.

[44] 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.

"[47] 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.

[53] A study in 2011 by Douglas Miller shows that in English county cricket, the proportion of wickets to fall lbw has increased steadily since the First World War.

[62] 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.

[57] Among those who do not follow cricket, the law has the reputation of being extremely difficult to understand, of equivalent complexity to association football's offside rule.

[59] 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.