not allowed, and why was the rule originally passed that the ball must not be thrown or jerked? Because in the days of rough cricket to throw would have been dangerous to the batsman. It would be dangerous still, though the cricket grounds are so smooth. Yet, does any reasonable being suppose that cricket has suffered because there may be some doubt of the fairness of the delivery of Tyler, Geeson, McKibbin, at the present time, or of Southerton, Watson, David Buchanan, or Nash, in former days? I contend that bowlers of this kind ought never to be "no-balled," unless there is no manner of doubt in the minds of every judge of the game that the ball is thrown, not bowled. You would not damage perfectly legitimate bowling. It is no easier for the general run of cricketers to bowl with a doubtful action than with a fair action; but it is certain that it should be the object of every cricketer to diminish, not increase, the number of runs, and runs will increase if you disestablish a certain number of more or less successful bowlers, because there is some uncertainty about the fairness of their delivery. So easy is it to bat in
