LAWS OF CRICKET

Southland Times, Issue 20666, 23 April 1929, Page 7

LAWS OF CRICKET

PROPOSED CHANGES

HIGHER AND BROADER WICKETS

LIMITATION OF BOUNDARY

(United Press Assn.—By Telegraph—Copyright).

London, April 21

The Marylebone Cricket Club’s sub-com-mittee, appointed to consider the Hon. R. H. Lyttelton's proposal that the leg-before wicket law include balls pitching on the off side of the wicket, has issued its report and recommendations which will be considered by meetings of the Advisory County Committee and the Board of Control on April 26.

The recommendations include the widening and heightening of the wicket by one inch. A striker may be given out leg before even though the ball may have first hit the bat or the hand. The committee suggests the elimination of the latter part of Law 27 from the word "except” to the end, depriving a batsman of the right to stop a ball from hitting the wicket after it has once been struck.

The fielding side should be allowed to demand a new ball after 150 runs have been made. It is recommended that the boundary immediately behind the bowler’s arm be limited to approximately 80 yards from the striker’s wicket and extend in a straight line till it meets the normal side boundaries. The maximum time of the actual rolling of the ground should be reduced to seven minutes instead of ten.

The sub-committee states that the changes recommended are meant to apply only to county cricket and are solely in the experimental state.—Australian Press Association.

CURTAILED BOUNDARY OPPOSED.

SUPPORT FOR L.B.W. PROPOSAL.

(Rec. 7.15 p.m.) London, April 22. A. Sandham, the Surrey professional, interviewed regarding the Marylebone Club's proposals, said he did not think higher or broader wickets would make much difference to county cricket. The limitation of the boundary would encourage big hitting, but he could not see the point in making all grounds oblong. Personally, he did not like all this tampering with the game.

P.. F. Warner states that he is in favour of widening and heightening the wicket if counties think it desirable. This is only a natural evolution of the game. He also favoured the l.b.w. proposal, and the limit of seven minutes’ rolling, but protests strongly against the proposal to curtail the boundary, quoting in this connection the opinion of Mr P. H. Pardon in Wisden’s Almanac of 1907. He is also opposed to giving the bowler a new ball every 150 runs, as it would encourage the swinging bowler to the detriment of length and spin. —Australian Press Association.