opinion, to be decided on broad principles. The point above all to be kept in mind, is how to promote the best interests of cricket.
Too many runs and drawn matches are the curse of modern cricket. It seems fated that every change made in the rules should favour the batsman, and increase the number both of runs and drawn matches. What, then, is the proper attitude to take with regard to this question of throwing? I may be unorthodox in the view I take, but I certainly think that considerable latitude ought to be given in favour of the bowler, and the benefit of the doubt be on his side, with this proviso, that cricket should not be allowed to become dangerous. You cannot lay down a hard and fast rule, but why should not the whole matter be looked at from a common-sense point of view? Why not allow all bowling, unless there can be no possible doubt that it is throwing, for slow and medium pace bowlers? Whilst in the case of very fast bowling, seeing that a throw under these circumstances would be dangerous, let the benefit of the doubt be the other way, and "no-ball" every doubtful delivery. Why is throwing
