LEG BEFORE WICKET.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XV, Issue 2106, 26 February 1887, Page 3

LEG BEFORE WICKET.

The following is from the pen of "Not out" the cricket correspondent of the "Sydney Referee," on theabove much vexed topic, — As to the much vexed question or habit rather of playing the ball with one's legs, which, by-the-bye, has seemingly emerged into an astute science with not a few players of late, much can be said pro and con. Some time ago I quoted from a portion of an article in the London Times, who advocated either the widening of the wicket by the addition of a forth stump, or the reduction of the width of the bat. The latter would be almost impracticable, and the former somewhat ridiculous. The only option then is to play the strict laws of the game, and if any player wilfully intercepts a break-ball pitched off and breaking into the wicket, by placing his legs in front, the umpire should be armed with the most stringent if not arbitrary powers of punishing the miscreant. As the laws of crickci stand at present it is not unlawful, and therefore there is no penalty. First, then, let the proper authorities illegalise the practice, and then lay down the penalty in such a manner and so concise that the caprices of the umpire may be fettered, and consequently legal. Some say, and say truthfully, that tre innovation would give the umpires too much dircretionary power, aud must therefore afford opportunity for dishonest decisions. Be that as it may, if the umpires are a dishonest set, have they not already sullicient power by virtue of the ollice, to give unfair and dishonest awards under the present rules? We must not argue against the uses of anything by contrasting its abuses. Break bowling is now so prevalent and destructive that all bowlers who can master the cunning endeavour to do so to the deterioration, may be, of pace, and pitch, but it effects little against a batsman in whose hands the bat is almost impregnable, aud who has taken the precaution to educate his legs to be useful in cases o_ emergency. Is this true cricket ? It is manifestly unfair that the bowler of break balls, say from the leg, should have no protection simply because the ball ho bowled was not pitched in a line between the stumps, although it should after wards return, like the Prodigal Son, to wero it was destined to go. Unfortunately, the umpire, if unjnst, would be the most dangerous man in the field, but are there not honest men to be found for umpires, if not it if a sorry work cricket has accomplished upon the characters of players. If the umpires are honest, every man in the field must be, to a great extent, similar, or if not, they (the fieldimen) can do little or no harm and the batsmen as well must perforce play the honest old game of cricket, unassociated with football.