A NEW CRICKET RULE.
An old cricketer of repute visited his son's school last term and discovered that the boys had' been .told and ordered to cover up the wicket with their legs in the case of balls break. Mg from the " off." His indignation was hot even a wetk or two later. He felt that something was almost morally wrong when such advice could be-given:- His disgust re. minded me of an episode at -A-great-Public School when the Captain of Cricket ordered a lawntennii court to be marked out on the field, and announced that he meant to play him. self. There were masters who spoke' as if the moral founds. tions of the school were crumbling. Fashions in game change, and we must accommodate ourselves. Nevertheless, a great many of us, not temperamentally reactionary, will agree with the -indignation of this old cricketer ; and it is whispered that a drastic change of the 1.b.w. rule is in fact meditated. Every cricketer has his pet theory of reform ; and most agree that some help must be given to the bowler. Whet two county teams can play three full days and scarcely COD plete an innings apiece, when Eton and Harrow play five eon. secutive draws, when a Test Match threatens to last a week or more, when a side that does not make 300 runs is said to collapse, some reform seems to be indicated ; and the likeliest —as a beginning—is a reform of the l.b.w. rule. It is an out. rage that legs should be deliberately used instead of the propel bat. The difficulty is that a batsman must stand some ; and why should he allowed to stop leg-breaking balls and not off-breaking `balls ?- An.answerean be found; and the new rule may be of the folloi;gng character :—" A batsman shall be out if he stops with ,his person a ball that would in the opinion of the Umpire have hit the wicket audit at the same time any part of the wicket is obscured by the legs." This would prevent such coaching as appalled the old cricketer and yet allow the batsman a free " stance."
W. BEACH THOMAS.
Previous page
