It is the batsman who has failed and he gets off scot free.
Batsmen seem to think that the world would come to an end if under the circumstances mentioned above they would be out. They can almost be heard talking with blanched faces and with bated breath when the bare suggestion to change the l.b.w. rule is made. We know we have a bat, they seem to say, but how can we be expected with such a puny piece of wood, only four and a quarter inches broad, to play good bowling and balls pitched outside the bowler's territory without adding our legs to protect the wicket? They do not appear to see that itisin consequence of their not getting out early enough or often enough that the great game is in danger of being ruined owing to rungetting and drawn matches. Mr. Maclaren, in his day a splendid batsman and a close observer, and moreover a somewhat severe critic of present-day batsmen, wrote an article in the News of the World of the 25th of July, 1926, in which he shows himself to be in favour of giving the benefit of the doubt for the bowler and against the batsman in all l.b.w. decisions. For this I am grateful, but any further alteration of the l.b.w. rule would in his opinion "defeat its own object, as it must penalise the one man deserving better treatment . . . the forcing batsman of strong back play who gets in front solely for the purpose of forcing the turning ball to the on boundary." But the fact remains that presumably the batsman has taken up the position Mr. Maclaren recommends because it was the best for forcing the ball to the on boundary or merely stopping it, in either case with the bat. He fails to do this, or in other words, the
