LIves in Cricket No 31 - Walter Robins

101 Changing the Law lightened their task. It is up to the rest of the cricketing counties and all Club Cricket Associations to try the experiment thoroughly without delay. We in Middlesex were delighted with the experiment and think that it has given a very much needed fillip to the game. The trial was continued for another season and in 1937 Law 24 was amended. For the 1939 Wisden Brookes invited Bradman to contribute an article on the future of the game and he used the opportunity to stress that he believed that it was time for another change to the law: Irrespective of where the batsman’s pads or feet are, I believe that if a ball is pitched in a line between wicket and wicket, or on the off-side of the wicket and would have hit the stumps but is prevented from doing so by part of the batsman’s person (providing the ball has not first touched his bat or hand) the bowler is entitled to be rewarded. Under the existing law, that part of the batsman’s person which is struck by the ball must be between wicket and wicket . Bradman thought those last six words afford the batsman too much latitude. He went on to say that the ‘leg-side may have to be considered in later years, but it would probably be too drastic a step to alter both sides at once.’ During the correspondence between Robbie and Bradman over the years, the subject of the lbw law had frequently been mentioned and in 1951 Bradman had been able to find a copy of his 1933 letter to MCC. Signing off as ‘Goldie’ he wrote to Robbie as follows: I promised you that I would try and find the letter I wrote to MCC. I did so and a copy is enclosed. It was written in Jan 1933 in the middle of the test match season. No reply was received. You may remember that Larwood said at one time ‘inter alia’ that he had to resort to leg side bowling because he was wasting his time bowling at or outside the off stump. Batsmen were so adept at covering up with their pads that he could beat a man but not get his wicket. This statement impressed me not so much a reason as an excuse for body-line and was one of the reasons why I then said to myself — alright — take away this excuse and then where would be his argument for the leg side. Apparently I was not alone in my thoughts for if you turn to page 309 of the 1933 Wisden you will find the editor has therein written ‘To the abuse of this law (i.e. lbw) may fairly be traced the trouble which has arisen in Australia during our tour now in progress’. He then went on to advocate a return to the original lbw law ‘with qualifications as to its application on the leg side’. You will notice in one part of my letter that I refer to the ‘snick’ in the lbw law. That, of course, has since been abolished and rightly so. Now you rocked me a bit the other day when you asked why I had not done anything to try and bring about this alteration. I replied by telling you that the MCC made the laws of cricket and that unless they were prepared to try the experiment then it just had no hope of succeeding. That is correct. I wrote to MCC in 1933. Apparently my