LEG THEORY BOWLING

Taranaki Daily News, 14 January 1935, Page 3

LEG THEORY BOWLING

DEATH KNELL SOUNDED. ENGLISH DECISION A SURPRISE. (From Our Own Correspondent). London, Nov. 29. . It was believed that the M.C.C. would be content to settle the leg theory problem by altering the leg before wicket rule. That is to say, by widening the scope of bowlers they planned to leave them with neither need nor reason for an attack on the leg side. But they decided on a bolder course which was not anticipated, although Sir Stanley Jackson, the chairman of the Test match selectors, had insisted that leg theory must be defined and banished from the game. From their own observations the M.C.C. states there was evidence that cases of a bowler making a direct attack ob a batsman had taken place during the past season. Their definition of an attack of this description is' bowling “of fast short-pitched balls at the batsman standing clear of his wicket." This definition has been accepted by the county captains, and they gave an undertaking that it would be faithfully observed. But beyond this the responsibility for its total elimination from the game has been put on the umpires. The latter have been informed that they will be given the strongest support in any action they may take in the event of leg theory again being introduced. As I have indicated, the decision of the authorities was a surprise, and they have been criticised on the grounds that they have shelved the question by leaving' the umpires to settle it. It is also pointed out that it is tantamount to admission that the Australians have proved their case and that their complaints were entirely justified. Well, if this is correct the M.C.C. were compelled, in the interests of the game as well as to satisfy the demands of the Australians and restore peace, to take the strongest possible course of action. CRITICISM OF NEW L.B.W. RULE. The decision to change the l.b.w. rule has also met with a mixed reception. Few of the batsmen favour it, and I do not think their judgment has been influenced entirely by their own interests. Bowlers, too, are doubtful about the wisdom of the alteration. The new rule will prevent batsmen “covering up” with their pads against balls pitched outside the off stump because it is laid down that if such a ball, when impeded, would have struck the stumps, the batsmen will be given out, Thus another considerable responsibility has been put on the umpires, and it is not surprising that their immediate response has been to ask for high fees. At the present time they received £2O for two matches a week, and from this they have to pay their expenses. Under these conditions they can earn only about £230 a season, and the sum does not seem adequate. One criticism of the rule, which is to be tried as an experiment next season in the county championship but not in other branches of the game, is that the leg break bowler should be entitled to the advantage which is to be conferred on a man who turns the ball in from the off. “Why,” it is asked, “should a bowler of the type of Verity be favoured, and Freeman be left to have his leg breaks played with the pads?” I do not suppose the authorities overlooked this point and I imagine they decided that to lay the batsman open to balls turning in on both sides would be conceding too much power to the bowler. There is no doubt that the new rule will make a tremendous difference to batsmanship. The square stance will, I think, have to go, and there is bound to be considerably more offside play. The long view is that batting will improve, but players will require time to become familiar with the altered conditions, and in the meantime innings are likely to be shorter and scores smaller. In fact, the counties are afraid that matches may be decided within two days and that they will lose the receipts from the third.