thought it was unsportsmanlike. Having then established some principle, the first question may be asked, are the legs a proper and legitimate line of defence or are they not? If they are, why should they not be used to any sort of ball, and abolish the l.b.w. rule altogether; if they are not, why may they be properly used to balls which pitch outside the bowler's territory and not to those which pitch in the bowler's territory?
It is now laid down in the text-books that to use the legs is not only sportsmanlike, but is the proper method to adopt to balls pitching outside the bowler's territory. In a very interesting chapter on batting by Mr. D. J. Knight in the 1920 edition of the Badminton Library Cricket, it is said, page xlii: "There is nothing wrong or contrary to the spirit of the game in bringing the legs back together in front of the wicket and behind the bat to act as an extra defence, so long as the ball has pitched off the wicket," and in another place, page xliii: "We do not for a moment advocate the playing of the ball with the legs alone, with the bat in the air. . . . Every ball, no matter what it is, should be attempted to be met with the bat except, of course, the leaving alone of the off ball. But there is no possible harm in the batsman making use of a last line of defence in the event of the bat not proving sufficient, provided always that the bat is invariably resorted to in the first instance. To bring both legs back together in front of the wicket to a ball that pitches straight is unsound and bad cricket, and should not be indulged in, except of course when a daring push to leg off a straight one is being attempted." But Mr. Knight seems somewhat to contradict himself, for he writes in another
