time they did not do so nearly as often and hundreds of wickets were got by the ball beating the bat. Mr. P. J. Paravicini was altogether in favour of the change, though he did not think it had had a fair trial, but he was clearly of opinion that anything which made the batsmen play at the ball with the bat instead of putting the leg across and not trying to play the ball, must help the hard worked bowler. Mr. Barker, Captain of the Surrey 2nd Eleven, saw very few instances of l.b.w. and concluded that the change had the desired effect of stopping men playing with their legs and not with the bat. If this was the cause of six matches producing definite results out of ten played and all of them being limited to two days, the change was a striking success.
An important point to be borne in mind about the Minor Counties' trial of a changed l.b.w. rule is that it was made in 1902 when l.b.w. cases were rather less than half in number compared to what they are now. Would the gentlemen whose opinions have been given have thought the same in 1927 as they did in 1902? That is the point. All things considered, the vagueness of some of the statements, the very wet season, and the different style of batting owing to the far more prevalent habit of covering up with the legs after about 1920 compared with 1902, the inexperience of the umpires in 1902 and the making of such an important trial in second-class cricket with second-class umpires, all these things contributed to make the trial of 1902 more or less useless as a guide to help the authorities in these days to come to a decision on an alteration of the l.b.w. law. It was not a sufficient trial and should be ignored, and the wholequestion considered on its merits in the light of up-to-date experience.
