jerked, or delivered with a bent arm, the umpire shall call "no ball." If this were the ruling, there would at any rate be a final solution of a great difficulty, which would be far better than what happens now when Mold and Tyler play in one match and are allowed to bowl, and go on next day to another match and are "no-balled." As I said before, I think this course could only add to the horrible plethora of runs, and its advantages would not nearly balance its injustice and evils: but if it is not adopted, let the bowlers have the benefit of the doubt, and let there be no manner of doubt about the ball being thrown before the fatal "no ball" is called. Does any sportsmanlike cricketer who is a good judge of the game really think that cricket would have been any better, if Southerton, Buchanan, Nash, Crossland, Jones, A. H. Evans, McKibbin, Lockwood, Tyler, and Mold had been systematically "no-balled"? I have carefully watched all these bowlers, and though I think that the fastest of them frequently throw or threw, I am well aware that better judges think otherwise. Anyhow it is not an absolute
