Jack Leach Survives LBW Appeal — Headingley 2019

The 2019 Ashes series was evenly poised at 1-1 going into the third Test at Headingley. Both sides had momentum and the series was expected to be decided by fine margins. England were under pressure after a dominant Australian performance at Lord's where they comprehensively levelled the series.

Headingley had traditionally been a ground that offered pace and bounce, usually favouring the faster bowlers. When England were set 359 to win in the fourth innings — a total that would be the highest successful run chase at the ground — few gave them a realistic chance.

Ben Stokes was England's talismanic figure in 2019, his performances defining the series. His ability to absorb pressure and counter-attack made him the one batsman who could conceivably take England to an improbable target. But even Stokes needed a partner to see him through.

England's chase progressed through multiple partnerships before the dramatic final wicket. Stokes batted through the entire innings in one of the great sustained batting performances, but England's last recognised batsman fell leaving Stokes with Jack Leach — a specialist spinner who had made limited contributions with the bat at Test level.

Australia's Nathan Lyon was the bowler most likely to dismiss Leach. Lyon appealed for LBW against the left-hander, and the on-field umpire Joel Wilson turned it down. Australia immediately reviewed — having identified the dismissal as a near-certainty.

Ball tracking showed the ball was hitting the stumps. But the critical measurement was the percentage of the ball hitting: the system showed less than 50% of the ball would have hit the stumps. Under DRS protocols, "umpire's call" applied — the original not-out decision stood.

The 2019 Headingley Test produced one of cricket's greatest ever innings — Ben Stokes' unbeaten 135 to chase down 359 in the fourth innings. But the innings nearly ended prematurely when last man Jack Leach survived an LBW appeal.

With England still needing runs, Nathan Lyon appealed for LBW against Leach. The on-field umpire gave not out. Australia reviewed, and ball tracking showed the ball was hitting the stumps — but with less than 50% of the ball, making it "umpire's call." The original not-out decision stood.

Had the on-field umpire given it out, the same ball tracking would have upheld the decision, meaning Australia were disadvantaged by the binary nature of umpire's call. This added fuel to the ongoing debate about the umpire's call protocol.

Leach survived and memorably scored 1 not out from 17 balls while Stokes smashed the Australian bowling to all parts. The 76-run last-wicket partnership is etched in cricket folklore. But the umpire's call decision on Leach was a sliding-door moment that the entire outcome hinged upon.

“When I saw it hit the stumps I was sure we had him. Then they said umpire's call and I couldn't quite believe it.”

“I didn't know what was happening to be honest. I just tried to keep my bat straight and give Stokesy the strike.”

“The umpire's call system is there for a reason. Less than 50% of the ball — you cannot be certain enough to overturn. The system worked as intended.”

“What Ben Stokes did that day was the greatest innings I have ever seen in Test cricket. Bar none.”

Australia were incredulous. Bowler Nathan Lyon and captain Tim Paine both felt the review clearly showed the ball was hitting the stumps and the not-out decision was incorrect. The umpire's call protocol — which means the original decision stands when less than half the ball would have hit the stumps — was explained to them but drew little sympathy in the heat of the moment.

The aftermath of the match was dominated by two stories: Stokes' extraordinary innings and the umpire's call controversy. Former players lined up on both sides — some defending the DRS protocol as a fair system, others arguing that it created absurd outcomes where a ball clearly hitting the stumps does not result in a wicket.

The ICC faced renewed calls to review the umpire's call threshold. Some argued the percentage should be raised or eliminated; others maintained the protocol was designed precisely to prevent technology from overturning decisions where the margin is too fine to be certain.