oh, and a question regarding timing...

greeneggonmyface

We are planning on grilling a leg of lamb (boneless) using the rosemary/garlic recipe and can't believe all it will take is 24 minutes? It seems that wouldn't be long enough. (from the recipe on this site)...just wanted confirmation on that before compnay comes. Buying one large enough to feed 8 adults.
Thanks

Aron

greeneggonmyface,[p]I did the balsamic/rosemary/garlic boneless leg of lamb about 2 weeks ago. I cooked it indirect at 400, and it took somewhere between 45 mins to an hour and came out fantastic. Perhaps cooking it direct would take only 24 minutes, but when I was about to cook it, someone on the forum suggested indirect, so I did it that way. The flavor was so good, that I don't see how you could go wrong either way. If if takes only 24 minutes direct, great. If not, and it takes an extra 20-30 minutes or so, your guests will be glad they waited.
--Aron

Aron

Aron,[p]Sorry--forgot to mention that the leg I cooked was just over 2 pounds. Hope that helps, and good luck.

Unknown

greeneggonmyface,
I believe your trepidation over the "cook" time can be alleviated by the fact that the "leg" is "butterflied", thus will be much thinner and will take less cooking time to reach the proper temperature, too lamb is usually not served cooked to the "well done" state. The lamb will continue to cook some after it is taken off the grill.
Hope this helps...nde

Marvin

greeneggonmyface,
If the leg is butterflied, it will cook like grilling a steak. If it is cooked as a whole, it should be looked at as a roast, and indirect is best. To avoid any question, stick in a thermometer and take it off at 125. Let it sit for 15 minutes; as stated below, it will continue cooking for a short time. When you are ready to cut into it, it should be medium rare. This is true for a butterflied, direct cook, or an indirect roast. Enjoy.