which will be found in the 1903 Wisden, does not leave any decided impression on the mind of the reader. Mr. Allen, of Bedfordshire Cricket Club, said he was opposed to the change because there were two cases of unsatisfactory decisions which were likely to continue . . . it was im possible, or so he thought, for any umpire to calculate with certainty the angle of any break, and why, Mr. Allen asked, should this extra duty be placed on the umpire? . . . it was undesirable to increase the responsibility of the umpire, especially in the direction of doubt . . . he would be worried with appeals and general unpleasantness would be caused. Bedfordshire played ten matches in 1902 and if there were not more than two unsatisfactory decisions, there was very little to complain of, and Mr. Allen may be assured that even first-rate umpires are not always infallible. As to the impossibility of calculating with certainty the angle of any break, umpires have to do that now to appeals for l.b.w. to balls pitched on the bowler's territory, and this is more difficult to do now than it was in 1902 because batsmen, following the Badminton Library advice, cover up and totally hide the wicket from the umpire more than they did in 1902. Colonel Fellowes, whose opinion was a personal one, stood umpire himself on two days, and thought an l.b.w. appeal was easier to decide under the new rule, but there were a number of appeals and the rule was not thoroughly understood, while the players did not understand that the leg must be between wicket and wicket. Colonel Fellowes seemed to think that when the new rule got to be understood the appeals would not be so many. The late Mr. J. H. Brain was strongly against any change, but he
