The Crisis in Cricket and the "Leg Before Rule"

Front matter

THE CRISIS IN CRICKET

AND THE

"LEG BEFORE RULE"

Chapter 1

CHAPTER I

DRAWN MATCHES

T has often been said, and said truly, that drawn matches are the curse of cricket. If this is the case the great game is in peril, as the number of drawn matches has been increasing and is still increasing, and if our authorities do not put our house in order, the greatest game in the world will fall. This statement may sound alarming, but there are ominous signs that all is not well, and the position should be recognized and faced and dealt with at once.

It cannot be too often pointed out that a draw at cricket stands on an altogether different footing from a draw in the other ball games. Cricket, football, tennis, rackets, golf, billiards, polo, fives, hockey and lawn tennis practically exhaust the list of ball games, and draws are impossible in all of them except in cricket, football, golf, polo and hockey. But in football, golf, polo and hockey, what are called drawn games are in reality tie matches, and altogether different from drawn games at cricket. In football, for instance, these tie matches, apart from luck which is common to all ball games, occur either when territorially neither side has any advantage over the other, or the shooting at goal is weak, or the defence too strong, and the fair result is a tie. In League football it is recognised as such, and each side is credited with one point. A draw at cricket, on the other hand, is so rarely a tie that it need not be taken into account, and draws take place either in consequence of rain, or enormous run-getting or slow batting. Three days, as many days as hours for any other game, are not enough to enable a cricket match to be finished with a definite result. Such a state of things is not to be found in any other ball game in the world and is altogether detestable.

For better or for worse most of the first-class cricket in England consists of county matches, and for some forty years first-class county cricket has been governed under a system of tables, which was only moderately successful even in those days when drawn matches were fewer than they are now. Under this system the counties are arranged in order of merit at the end of every season, but the results have not been by any means always satisfactory and changes have been made from time to time. Two instances will show how unsatisfactory the system was fourteen years ago and again in July, 1927. In 1913 Notts played Kent at Canterbury, and Notts led on the first innings by 14 runs. Probably at this stage the weather broke up, the wicket became difficult, and Notts lost five wickets for 28 runs, Kent being in a winning position when heavy rain brought the match to an abrupt conclusion. But owing to a 14 runs lead in the first innings Notts took three points and Kent none. No doubt Notts had very bad luck, but luck is always present in cricket and often adds an interest to the game and is accepted as such, and the broad fact remains that although the odds at the end of the match were at least two to one on Kent, yet they lost points and the side who were in the worst position gained thereby. As recently as the end of July, 1927, when Sussex and Surrey played at Brighton, the first innings ended in a tie, but at the end, Sussex were 155 runs in front, when Surrey had lost eight of their best wickets, and although the odds must have been five to one at least on Sussex, yet points were divided. These two instances show how absurd the position is in county cricket, yet no satisfactory system can be found, the principal and probably sole reason being the huge run-getting of the present day. Drawn matches unfortunately must always be with us owing to our climate, and for this reason alone some steps should be taken to attain the one paramount object, the obliteration of drawn matches except when caused by bad weather.

The matches played between public schools never have more than two days allowed them, and bad weather and high scoring affect matches so much that a definite finish is getting to be exceptional. The last six Eton and Harrow matches have all been drawn, and four out of the last six between Cheltenham and Haileybury, and the same number of Eton and Winchester matches. The weather, no doubt, has been responsible for many of these, but big run-getting is frequent, and the day may come when schoolmasters, and even the boys, will begin to doubt if it is worth while to spend so much time and money on cricket when so many of the inter-school matches are unfinished.

In England we have a crowd of matches crammed into a season of a little over four months, and to give more than three days would be impossible even if desirable. But there seems to be growing a feeling that it is almost outside the bounds o f possibility to finish an England and Australia Test match in three days, so four or more days will have to be given. The Australians themselves, naturally and rightly, hate any idea of drawn matches, and when they say that it is ridiculous for them to travel thousands of miles to play drawn matches, we must agree with them. Anybody who saw the Test match in 1921 at the Oval saw what a farce three-day Test matches may possibly become. On the last day all hope of finishing the match was abandoned; Mr. Armstrong, the captain, practically retired from the game, and Russell and Brown scored hundreds whilst the regular bowlers were rested. This fiasco was probably largely the reason why it was agreed that the last Test match at the Oval in 1926 should be played to a finish, but it ran to after six o'clock on the fourth day, and would probably have run to a fifth or even sixth if heavy rain on the night of the second day had not made the wicket difficult to play on after the first two days. In Test matches it seems to be possible that three day matches are doomed, and in the years when the Australians are over here, all our arrangements will be upset.

It is not necessary to give more than a few statistics to prove that if something is not done to make drawn matches fewer in number, three day matches will perish. In the good old days very few drawn matches occurred except when caused by rain. But in 1926 one hundred and fifty-one matches were finished, and one hundred and thirty-nine were drawn, and a careful examination of the drawn matches shows that about fifty of them were due to a glut of run- . In 1927 there was such a lot of rain that we are apt to forget that for the first seven weeks the weather though cold was dry, and wickets easy for batting. During this period, out of one hundred and fifteen matches, seventy were finished, forty-five drawn, and in the case of forty-two of these the draw was due to huge run-getting. This is far too large a number of draws to be considered healthy, but taken by itself does not show how bad the position is. A large proportion of the matches that ended with a definite result were played between unequally matched elevens, like those between the six leading counties, Lancashire, Notts, etc., against Worcestershire, Somerset and Northamptonshire, and other counties making up the last six. I have closely examined the matches played in this dry period of seven weeks, and about twenty-two resembled matches between the first and second elevens of a school, and victories such as these are nearly a third of the total sum of seventy matches that ended in decisive results.

There are some matches that apparently can hardly be expected to be anything but drawn. The time-honoured games between Gentlemen and Players at Lords, which, in some shape or other, have been played for more than a century, seems to be one of them. In the last six matches only one finished with a victory, and of the five drawn games three were due entirely to unhealthy scoring and two to large scoring combined with bad weather. The last six Gentlemen and Players matches at Scarborough have all been drawn, four due to a glut of runs, one to rain, and one to glut of runs combined with rain. The Oval is no doubt one of the easiest grounds in England for run-getting, and out of twenty-five matches played in August during the six years, 1922-7, nineteen were drawn. Eight of these were due to bloated scoring in fine weather and well may Strudwick say, as he has in his book (Twenty-five Years Behind the Stumps, p. xx), "when two good batting sides meet, it is generally a drawn game unless rain intervenes and play is abandoned."

It would seem from these figures that the time is not far distant when we shall, as a result of enormous run-getting and bad weather, sometimes separately, sometimes in combination, see about 50 per cent of first-class cricket matches end in draws, while an appreciable number will end in a victory for one side only because they will be played between say six of the strongest counties against six of the weakest. This is a real danger and is worth careful consideration before it is too late and the crash has come.

Cricket, as before said, is quite unlike any other ball game, and, played as it is, takes as many days to play as hours for any other ball game, and yet three days is not long enough to avoid draws, and this is not all. Constant drawn matches are a weariness of the flesh both to players and spectators, and though a match is not drawn till it is over it is often obvious that it is going to be a draw very early. I remember many games when at the end of the first day the side that went in first has not been got out, and the feeling that a draw is inevitable hangs over us like a wet blanket and the joy of a match is gone. "No day is good to me without blood," said that good sportsman Jorrocks, not even a good run, and so it is with cricket. No drawn match is good, and especially is this the case in fine weather, when all we carry away in our minds, at the end of the so-called match, is a confused impression of tired bowlers and field, and an orgy of batting—as many think, all for nothing. Gone, to a very large extent, are the keen and close finishes, and unless something is done, three-day matches will be found to be not sufficient, as is the case already in Australia, where a whole week will soon be not enough. In Mr. Gilligan's last tour in Australia three out of the five Test matches ran into the seventh day.

Some day, perhaps suddenly, the public will get tired of all this. In 1887 at the historical first meeting of the County Cricket Council, when a change in the l.b.w. rule was discussed, Mr. Wolstenholme, the secretary of the Yorkshire County Cricket Club, said it was important to alter the rule was soon as possible; "The attendances of the public were becoming smaller year by year, and if the practice continued the interest in cricket, as far as the North of England was concerned, would materially diminish." In 1901 the Leyton ground was a batsman's paradise, and Essex played five consecutive drawn matches all due to huge scoring. Wisden, of 1902, in describing the Essex and Lancashire match played for Carpenter's benefit said, "The long succession of drawn games had lessened the interest of the public in cricket at Leyton, and the attendance on the occasion of Carpenter's benefit was certainly disappointing." These two statements touch finance, and should make some County Committees think seriously.

As everybody knows the great County matches in the North of England are the two great annual struggles between Yorkshire and Lancashire, and the six matches played in 1925, 1926 and 1927 deserve attention because they show what cricket is coming to when both elevens are at the top of the ladder and tension is high, not only among the players, but even more so among the crowd. Both matches in 1925 were drawn and not for one moment did any other result seem possible, for 1354 runs were scored in the two games at an average rate of scoring of about 47 runs per hour and 26 per wicket. In 1926, at Manchester, 19 wickets fell for 861 runs in three full days' cricket, and according to Wisden the whole match resolved itself into a struggle for first innings' points from the start. The match at Bradford was won by Yorkshire. In 1927 Lancashire won at Manchester and there was another draw at Leeds. In the three years only two of the six matches were finished and the rate of scoring must have been about 48 runs per hour. As a rule the Lancashire and Yorkshire wickets are not so easy as the Southern, and well may Strudwick say about cricket at the Oval, "When two good batting sides meet it is generally a drawn game unless rain intervenes and play is abandoned." This remark of Strudwick is true of nearly every ground where first-class cricket is played, and a more unsatisfactory state of things cannot exist.

Chapter 2

CHAPTER II

EARLY HISTORY

N 1774 the first law relating to l.b.w. was passed, and it was as follows: "The striker is out... if the striker puts his leg before the wicket with a design to stop the ball and actually prevent the ball from hitting by it."

It was no skilled draftsman who wrote this rule, because nobody can say what sort of "design" a batsman can have in his mind or what is meant by "before the wicket," but a great deal of light is thrown on the subject by some remarks made by the most famous cricketer of his day, William Beldham. This dear old man was born in 1766 and died in 1862, and in the well-known book, The Cricket Field by the Rev. James Pycroft, Beldham is quoted as saying, "I remember when many things first came into the game which are common now. The law of l.b.w. was not made nor wanted till Ring, one of our best hitters, was shabby enough to get his leg in the way and take advantage of the bowlers, and when Tom Taylor, another of the best hitters, did the same, the bowlers found themselves beaten, and the law was passed to make leg before wicket out." Mr. Pycroft's story may be taken to be correct; he was born in 1813, and must often have seen and talked with Beldham and could hardly have invented this saying. In those days newspapers were few in number and casual in appearance, and the general public could have known little about the matter, as l.b.w. cases were not reported at all and the first recorded instance is to be found in 1795, when, in Scores and Biographies, we find "Hon. J. Tufton, l.b.w., b. Wells, 3." It was probably owing to that lack of information that Beldham was wrong in saying that there was no l.b.w. rule, because the first one was passed in 1774, when he was eight years old, but he was very likely right when he said the law was not much wanted till Ring brought the question up by what Beldham called "shabby" play. How was Ring's play shabby? He was born in 1758, and was therefore subject to the 1774 rule. It is a reasonable supposition that to be shabby his conduct must have been of a nature that defeated the law. It is also probable that the 1774 rule was interpreted in the sense that it is now, viz: to get a batsman l.b.w. the ball must pitch between wicket and wicket, and the shabby play of Ring and Taylor consisted of using the legs to save the wicket when the ball pitched outside the wicket. If Ring and Taylor had got in front to balls pitched between wicket and wicket, they would have been given out, and they might have been called bad players, but not shabby, for they paid the penalty.

Ring and Taylor's shabby play very likely was the reason why the rule was altered, and it is needless to discuss all the changes that have been made in the l.b.w. law; it is sufficient to say that from 1774 to the present day the law has been changed ten times and not once has a satisfactory definition of a straight ball been given; the question has been simply shirked. The present law stands as follows: The striker is out "if with any part of his person he stops the ball, which, in the opinion of the umpire at the bowler's wicket, shall have been pitched in a straight line from it to the striker's wicket and would have hit it." But what do the words "from it" mean? If it means what it is taken to be at the present day, "it" ought to be struck out, and "the bowler's wicket" substituted; if from the bowler's hand, "bowler's hand."

After Ring and Taylor's "shabby" play, about the year 1782, it is probable that umpires for some years were in the dark and followed no settled principle in giving l.b.w. decisions, some thinking that for a batsman to be given out l.b .w . it was necessary that the ball should pitch between wicket and wicket, while others held that where the ball pitched had nothing to do with the question. The rules gave them very little help, although nine revisions were made between 1774 and 1831. But there is some evidence that later, probably about 1831, it was commonly understood that where the ball pitched was immaterial. There is no written record to prove this, but what I am going to write is based on what was told me more than forty years ago. I have a very retentive memory for all matters connected with cricket and I remember the conversation I had with a very distinguished old cricketer as clearly as if it took place yesterday.

About the years 1885-7 I had a conversation with the late Lord Bessborough on the l.b.w. question which was very much to the front then owing to Shrewsbury's action, which will be described later. Lord Bessborough, better known perhaps as Fred Ponsonby, a good cricketer, a famous Harrow coach and a first-rate judge of the game, who played in the great matches from 1836 to about 1845, told me that about the years 1836-9, during a match at Lords, there was a difference of opinion between Dark and Caldecourt, the two leading Umpires of the day, on the interpretation of the l.b.w. rule. The question was referred to the M.C.C. Committee, who decided then and there that for the batsman to be given out l.b.w. the ball must pitch in the bowler's territory, i.e. between wicket and wicket. Lord Bessborough further added that somwhere in the archives of the M.C.C. some record would be found of this incident, but things were not done so systematically in those days, and no record exists. But he was positive about the facts and I remember the whole conversation distinctly. Moreover, Lord Bessborough's statement is corroborated by what fol lows, and may be taken as true. At the first meeting of the County Cricket Council, a report of which will be found in Wisden's Almanack of 1888, there was a great discussion about l.b.w. Lord Bessborough was not present, but Lord Harris, the Chairman, in an interesting and important speech, said that Lord Bessborough was in favour of an alteration in the l.b.w. rule, and later on read a portion of his letter, "in which the writer suggested a return to the old law of fifty years ago." This remark of Lord Bess­ borough's is very interesting. First it tells us that Lord Bessborough was in favour of an alteration of the law as it stood in 1887, and as it still stands, and secondly, Lord Bessborough "suggested a return to the old law of fifty years ago." This suggestion of Lord Bessborough's was made in 1887, and fifty years before that was 1837, which was the approximate date of the Dark and Caldecourt incident, when the M.C.C. laid down that the rule should be that for the batsman to be given out l.b.w. the ball must pitch between wicket and wicket. Previous to that it is clear that the l.b.w. rule was interpreted differently owing to Ring and Taylor's "shabby play," and it is a fair inference that for a batsman to be l.b.w. the pitch of the ball was not limited to between wicket and wicket, but anywhere, and if the batsman saved his wicket with his leg he was guilty of unfair play and was given out l.b.w., and this interpretation of the rule was what Lord Bessborough wanted to reinstate.

It is probable that most of us have forgotten about this first meeting of the County Cricket Council in 1887, but it will repay everybody to study it carefully. At that meeting there was an almost universal expression of opinion amongst the delegates, many of whom were most distinguished cricketers, that some alteration in the l.b.w. rule was necessary. Lord Harris, the Chairman, in his opening speech said that in that year, 1887, "the scores were very abnormal"; "there was a very strong feeling that these scores had been very much the effect of a style of play that had become noticeable within the last three or four years"; "gentlemen of the older cricket world were decidedly of opinion that some alteration was required in the law of l.b.w." Lord Harris himself "had abandoned any idea of changing the size of the wicket and was inclined to think that an alteration of the l.b.w. rule would be valuable and of importance." The great R.A.H. Mitchell wrote, "that a man should be out whose leg was between wicket and wicket and was hit by a ball that would take the wicket."

Mr. V. E. Walker wrote what was practically the same opinion. Finally, M r. Ellison gave notice that "At special meeting of the Council to be held in February he would move a resolution to call the attention of the M.C.C. to the unsatisfactory effect of law 24 and to recommend that it should be so altered as to secure that a batsman shall be out if with any part of his person, being in a straight line between wicket and wicket, he stop the ball, which in the opinion of the Umpire would have hit the wicket."

At a special meeting of the County Cricket Council, held on the 8th of February, 1888, Mr. Ellison's resolution was put and carried by eleven votes to three, and the centre of interest was shifted to the M.C.C., who, on the 13th of February, 1888, appointed a sub-committee "to consider and report to the General Committee whether any undue advantage rests with the batsman or with the bowler under the existing Laws of Cricket, and if so, what steps should be taken to remedy this defect." This sub-committee made several proposals but did not recommend any alteration of the l.b.w. law, on the ground that stopping the ball wilfully with the legs was done by a very limited number of cricketers, and before making any change in the law, ample opportunity for discussion should be given, and unanimity as far as possible arrived at. The Committee, however, passed the following resolution: "That the practice of deliberately defending the wicket with the person instead of the bat is contrary to the spirit of the game, and inconsistent with strict fairness, and the M.C.C. will discountenance and prevent this practice by every means in their power." The Committee also recommended that "Instructions be given to all Umpires the club may employ, that should they at any time see any batsman deliberately in their opinion defending his wicket with any part of his person, they shall report the same to the committee, and they hope that with the co-operation of the County authorities and cricketers generally this step will be found adequate to prevent the evil complained of. If not stronger measures may be necessary, but time will have been given for mature consideration, and the risk will be avoided of making an alteration in a most important law which experience may show cannot be maintained."

The Sub-Committee which passed the resolution and recommendation fully set out in the last paragraph consisted of Lord Bessborough, Lord Lyttelton (formerly Hon. C. G. Lyttelton), C. E. Boyle, A. W. Ridley, W. E. Denison, V. E. Walker, A. J. Webbe, Hon. Spencer Ponsonby and H. Perkins. When the resolution and recommendation came before the meeting, made special after the annual general meeting of 1888, a motion to defer the consideration of the alterations of the laws proposed by the Sub-Committee was carried in order to obtain the opinion of the leading clubs in England and elsewhere.

The next step in this controversy was a meeting made special after the annual general meeting in May, 1901. One resolution was moved and debated upon, and to under­ stand it better the present l.b.w. law must be read, which is as follows: "The striker is out... if with any part of his person he stops the ball which in the opinion of the Umpire at the bowler's wicket shall have been pitched in a straight line from it to the striker's wicket, and would have hit it l.b.w." The resolution that was proposed was to alter this rule and substitute the following: "If with any part of his person (except the hand) which is between wicket and wicket, he intercept a ball which would hit his wicket l.b.w."

It is not necessary in these days to say much about this debate except to say that it was carried by a majority of 71, but not passed, two-thirds of the majority not having been got. But the point that was not strongly enough brought out in the debate was that no batsman could be out l.b.w. unless the part of his person hit by the ball was between wicket and wicket. In other words, if the batsman keeps his legs, which are practically the only part of his person that need be considered, clear of the wicket, he cannot be out. But this has not been sufficiently recognized; if it had been the voting would have been different. Nobody ever lived who loved the game more or has done more for it than Lord Harris, yet even he seems not to have known this. I myself in a letter to The Times of the 22nd of July, 1926, suggested that a new l.b.w. rule be drafted, but I carefully added, "it must be remembered that no batsman can be l.b.w. if he keeps his legs clear of. . .the space between wicket and wicket. "Lord Harris, in a letter to The Times of the 24th of July, 1926, called my suggestion novel "because hitherto he and others have advocated such an alteration of Law 24 as would expose the striker to the risk of l.b.w. wherever the ball pitched and whether he was in front or not." My proposal was practically the same as was brought forward in the M.C.C. debate in 1901, and it has never been formally put forward in any other shape.

Reviewing all these facts it will be seen that more than forty years ago the proceedings at the first meeting of the County Cricket in 1887 show us that great dissatisfaction was felt, and at a special meeting of the same body in 1888 a motion in favour of an alteration in the l.b.w. law was carried by eleven votes to three, the effect of which was that a batsman should be out l.b.w. "if with any part of his person, being in the straight line from wicket to wicket he stops a ball which in the opinion of the umpire would have hit the wicket." The very strongly worded resolution of the M.C.C. Sub-Committee was also passed in the same year, but nothing whatever was done, and then came the full dress debate in 1901, and though; there was a majority in favour of changing the law, still nothing was done.

It might be said by some that no change was necessary because l.b.w. cases were not numerous and drawn matches were not common in those days. In 1890, for instance, l.b.w. cases were nothing like so numerous as they are nowaday. Admitting this, surely the fact that the percentage of cases of l.b.w. having risen from 1 in 17 in 1890 to 1 in 8 in 1926 and 1 in 9 in 1927 is more than enough to justify a change in opinion as well as an alteration of the law. In seven weeks in 1927, out of one hundred and twelve matches played on dry easy wickets, forty-two were drawn simply because of the gigantic scoring. Do cricketers really think that such a state of things is satisfactory? Has not the time come for the "stronger measures" alluded to in the last paragraph of the report of the M.C.C. Committee of 1888?

Chapter 3

CHAPTER III

LATER HISTORY