bowler has beaten him, and if that part of the leg which is hit by the ball is between wicket and wicket, surely it is only fair to the bowler that he should be given out. Why should the batsman who has failed go on with his innings while the bowler who has succeeded is deprived of his just reward?
Batsmen must play the ball with the bat, this is the one and only essential point, and to save the wicket with the legs is unfair to the bowler, and contrary to the traditions of the game. If legs are a fair means of defending the wicket why have a l.b.w. law at all? But as there is a law which establishes the principle that at any rate to balls pitching between wicket and wicket the legs are not to be used for defending the wicket, there is no valid reason why they may be used against balls pitched, it may be only an inch, outside the bowler's territory.
