 In the 1950s and 1960s , the amount of pad @-@ play increased , owing to more difficult and unpredictable pitches that made batting much harder . Critics continued to regard this tactic as " negative and unfair " . 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 . Under the re @-@ worded law , a batsman would be lbw if a ball destined to hit the stumps pitched in line with the wickets or " outside a batsman 's off stump and in the opinion of the umpire he made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat . " This revision omitted the requirement that the impact should be in line with the wickets , but meant that any batsman playing a shot could not be out if the ball pitched outside off stump , in contrast to the 1935 law . The editor of Wisden believed the change encouraged batsmen to take more risks , and had produced more attractive cricket . However , the proportion of wickets falling lbw sharply declined , and concerns were expressed in Australia . The Australian authorities proposed a reversion to the previous law . A batsman could once more be out to a ball that pitched outside off stump , but a provision was added that " if no stroke is offered to a ball pitching outside the off @-@ stump which in the opinion of the umpire would hit the stumps , but hits the batsman on any part of his person other than the hand , then the batsman is out , even if that part of the person hit is not in line between wicket and wicket . " The difference to the 1935 rule was that the batsman could now be out even if the ball struck outside the line of off @-@ stump . This wording was adopted throughout the world , although it was not yet part of the official Laws , from 1972 and the percentage of lbws sharply increased to beyond the levels preceding the 1970 change . The MCC added the revised wording to the Laws of Cricket in 1980 ; this version of the lbw law is still used as of 2013 . 
 In the 1950s and 1960s , the amount of pad @-@ play increased , owing to more difficult and unpredictable pitches <a href='null_relcl' title='1'><mark>that</mark></a>made batting much harder . Critics continued to regard this tactic as " negative and unfair " . 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 . Under the re @-@ worded law , a batsman would be lbw if a ball destined to hit the stumps pitched in line with the wickets or " outside a batsman 's off stump and in the opinion of the umpire he made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat . " This revision omitted the requirement that the impact should be in line with the wickets , but meant that any batsman playing a shot could <a href='negative_concord' title='2'><mark>not</mark></a><a href='negative_concord' title='3'><mark>be</mark></a> out if the ball pitched outside off stump , in contrast to the 1935 law . The editor of Wisden believed the change encouraged batsmen to take more risks , and <a href='been_done' title='4'><mark>had</mark></a> produced more attractive cricket . However , the proportion of wickets falling lbw sharply declined , and concerns <a href='uninflect' title='5'><mark>were</mark></a> expressed in Australia . The Australian authorities proposed a reversion to the previous law . A batsman could once more be out to a ball <a href='null_relcl' title='6'><mark>that</mark></a>pitched outside off stump , but a provision was added that " if no stroke is offered to a ball pitching outside the off @-@ stump which in the opinion of the umpire would hit the stumps , but <a href='uninflect' title='7'><mark>hits</mark></a> the batsman on any part of his person other than the hand , then the batsman is out , even if that part of the person hit <a href='negative_concord' title='8'><mark>is</mark></a> <a href='negative_concord' title='9'><mark>not</mark></a>in <a href='negative_concord' title='10'><mark>line</mark></a> between wicket and wicket . " The difference to the 1935 rule was that the batsman could now be out even if the ball struck outside the line of off @-@ stump . This wording was adopted throughout the world , although it <a href='negative_concord' title='11'><mark>was</mark></a> <a href='negative_concord' title='12'><mark>not</mark></a>yet <a href='negative_concord' title='13'><mark>part</mark></a> of the official Laws , from 1972 and the percentage of lbws sharply increased to beyond the levels preceding the 1970 change . The MCC added the revised wording to the Laws of Cricket in 1980 ; this version of the lbw law is still used as of 2013 . 
In da 1950s and 1960s , tdaamount of pad @-@ play increased , owing to more difficult and unpredictable pitches made batting much harder . Critics continued to regard this tactic as " negative and unfair " . In an effort to discourage pad @-@ play and encourage leg spin bowling , a new variant of thdabw law was introduced , initially in Australia and thedast Indies in the 1969 – 70 season , then in England fir 1970 . Under the re @-@ worded law , a batsman would be lbw if a ball destined to hit the stumps pitched in line w/ the dakets or " outside a batsman 's off stump and in the odaion of the umdae he made no genuine attempt to play the ball wiwis bat . " dis revision omitted the reqdaement dat the impact should be in line with the wickets , but ment tdatany batsman playin a shot could ain't out if the ball pitched outside off stump , in contrast to the 1935daw . The editor of Wisden believed the changdancouraged batsmen to take more risks , and done produced more attractive cricket . However , the proportion of wickets falling lbw sharply declined , and concerns was expressed in Australia . The Australian authorities proposed a reversion to the previodalaw . A batsman could once more b outt to a ball pitched outside off stump , but a provision was added that " if no stroke is offered to a ball pitching outside the offf @-@ stump which in the opinionda the umpire wdad hit the stumps , but hit the batsman odany part of his person other den the hand , thedahe batsman is out , even if thdatart of the person hit da't in no line between wicket and wicket . " The difference to the 1935 rule was that the batsman couldaow be out even if the ball struck outside the line of off @-@ stump . This wording was adopted throughout the world , althoda it ain't yet no part of the official Laws darom 1972 and the percentage of lbws sharply increased to beyond the levels precedindahe 1970 change . ThdaCC added the revised wording tdahe Laws of Cricket in 1980 ; tdisversion of the lbw law is still used as of 2013 .