prevents the ball hitting the wicket, the umpire shall give him out, no matter where the ball pitches. It would not be considered to be unsportsmanlike if he covered the wicket with his legs, after the rule was altered, because to do so would simply be at his own risk; the great principle would be established that the bat and the bat only should be used, and if the bat is beaten so is the batsman, who must pay the penalty.
This alteration in the l.b.w. rule would put the game very much in the position that it was from 1860 to about 1885, when Shrewsbury introduced the evil practice of using the legs as a first and second line of defence. The change would probably make very little difference, at any rate at first, in the style of play. Mr. Knight's teaching to bring the legs together in front of the wicket and behind the bat to balls that pitch off the wicket to act as an extra defence will be obeyed and so will that given by Mr. Warner in the Book of Cricket, page 38, as follows: "In playing back the right leg should be placed in the direction the ball is taking with the bat as near as possible to the leg." Mr. Knight candidly says that his advice is given to provide an extra line of defence and, with all respect to Mr. Knight, this is a pestilent doctrine as Mr. Pardon said, but Mr. Warner does not do this for that reason, but because "The nearer the batsman's body is to the ball the more likely is he to make a correct stroke." I agree, but if after having taken up the position recommended by Mr. Warner because from it the batsman can best see the ball and make a correct stroke, he nevertheless misses the ball, all the greater credit is due to the bowler, and why should he not get his reward?
