Tom Hayward's "Words of wisdom," "Oh, sir, why didn't you get your legs there in case the ball beat the bat!"
Colonel Trevor fully recognized the gravity of the case and suggested that an addition be made to law 24. "If in doubt give him out," and this principle should in official language be made law. He further writes with absolute truth: "I do not think that it can be seriously contended that the batsman was intended to have, either for offence or defence, any weapon but his bat and fingers." Colonel Trevor also points out what I have always thought and often maintained in conversation that there is nothing said in the l.b.w. rule about touching the ball first with the bat, though when the law was made it must often have occurred. If a batsman plays a ball with the inside edge of his bat and diverts it on to the wicket he is bowled out as he should be, though the ignorant call it unlucky. He has not met the ball with the middle of the bat and the bowler has beaten him. As the law says nothing about touching it first with the bat, why should the batsman be given not out simply because he has just touched the ball, very likely without turning it an inch, and saved his wicket with the legs? He is given in by an umpire-made custom established in the days when batsmen on more difficult wickets did not cover the wicket with the legs, did not make half the number of runs they do now and no drawn matches were played except owing to weather.
Colonel Trevor apparently does not want the l.b.w. rule to be altered, but is strongly in favour of giving the bowler the benefit of the doubt instead of the batsman. I should gladly support any movement in favour of this in default
