and try to imagine that they are bowlers. How can bowlers bowl batsmen out with balls pitched off the wicket when two well-padded legs are right in front of the wicket? How much more difficult the wicket, and consequently the bowling was, in the 'sixties and 'seventies, and how seldom comparatively did the batsmen get l.b.w. or get in front! Granted that they made far fewer runs, but was not that for the good of the game? How rare were drawn matches in fine weather. The wickets are far easier now; there would be more runs made than in the old days, even with the l.b.w. rule altered, but it is to be hoped that drawn games, as the result of too high scoring, would be considerably reduced.
Another class of objectors say that too much responsibility will be thrown on the umpires, and umpiring will be too difficult. Whether the rule is altered or not, umpiring must always be more or less difficult, but it will be made easier under an altered l.b.w. rule. By far the most difficult point for an umpire to decide is whether the ball is, or is not, pitched straight between wicket and wicket, but under an amended l.b.w. rule, this will not have to be considered at all. In addition to this, it may be hoped that if the change is made, batsmen will hesitate to cover the wickets to the extent they do now; it would be running too great a risk. Umpires will then see more of the wicket, whereas now, as Mr. Pardon wrote in Wisden of 1924, and a well-known umpire told me himself, they cannot see the wicket at all and they work in the dark.
There are other objectors who throw all the blame on the bowlers and say that the bloated run-getting is due to poor bowling. The reply to this is that it is difficult to believe
