them a little for being guilty of doing something contrary to the spirit of the game. Shrewsbury, about 1885, brought the matter to the front by using the legs to guard the wicket, and now most modern batsmen consider they are quite en titled to do so. It is a matter of opinion, but I do not hesitate to say that I deeply regret that this change of mind prevails, simply because legs used in this way must be unfair to the bowler. If batsmen had used the legs as they do now, after the ruling of the M.C.C. at the time of the Dark and Caldecourt incident about the year 1837, there would have been some excuse for them, for undoubtedly the wickets up to 1870-5 were far more difficult to bat on, especially at Lords, but they did not do so. If they had it would have created storms of disapproval. Since Shrewsbury's action the gradual increase of leg play has come in while the wickets have got better and better, or as I prefer to say, easier and easier to bat on until the ball seldom gets up stump high, and as for shooters, I have not seen half a dozen genuine dead shooters in the last thirty years.
Now what would be the position if the l.b.w. law was altered and the batsman given out l.b.w., no matter where the ball pitches, if with the legs or any part of the person being between wicket and wicket the ball is prevented from hitting the wicket? It would simply be the reinstating of the legs to their proper function; they would be a means to an end, and not an end in itself. The legs may be placed in any position the batsman likes, and this should be the place from which he thinks he can best play the ball with the bat, but if he fails to do this and if that part of hisperson (which practically means his legs) being between wicket and wicket
