Editing Leg before wicket (section)

===Controversy and attempted reform===
[[File:Ranji 1897 page 215 Shrewsbury playing back.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Arthur Shrewsbury]], one of the first batters to use his pads to prevent the ball hitting his wicket|alt=a cricketer standing in front of some stumps, preparing to hit the ball]]
In essence, the lbw law remained the same between 1839 and 1937, despite several campaigns to have it changed. An 1863 proposal to allow a batter to be lbw if the ball hit his body at any point between the wickets, regardless of where the ball pitched or whether it would hit the wicket at all, came to nothing.<ref name=B242/> There were few complaints until the proportion of lbw dismissals in [[County Championship|county cricket]] began to increase during the 1880s.<ref name=B242/> Until then, batters used their [[Cricket clothing and equipment|pads]] only to protect their legs; their use for any other purposes was considered unsporting, and some [[Amateur status in first-class cricket|amateur cricketers]] did not wear them at all. As cricket became more organised and competitive, some batters began to use their pads as a second line of defence: they lined them up with the ball so that if they missed with the bat, the ball struck the pad instead of the wicket. Some players took this further; if the delivery was not an easy one from which to score runs, they attempted no shot and allowed the ball to bounce safely off their pads. [[Arthur Shrewsbury]] was the first prominent player to use such methods, and others followed. Criticism of this practice was heightened by the increased quality and reliability of cricket pitches, which made batting easier, led to higher scores and created a perceived imbalance in the game.<ref>Brodribb, p. 243.</ref>

Several proposals were made to prevent pad-play. At a meeting of representatives of the main county cricket clubs in 1888, one representative<!-- M. J. Ellison was the representative --> expressed the opinion that a "batsman who defended his wicket with his body instead of with his bat should be punished".<ref name=1888mtg>{{Cite web| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152995.html| title = The leg before wicket question: Meeting of the County Cricket Council, 1889| work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1889 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 5 March 2012}}</ref> The representatives supported a motion to alter the law to state that the batters would be out if he stopped a ball that would have hit the wicket;{{refn|According to the 1888 proposal, "A batsman shall be out if with any part of his person, being in the straight line from wicket to wicket, he stop<!-- Stop is not a typo. The source quoted uses "stop", not "stops" --> a ball which in the opinion of the umpire would have hit the wicket."<ref name=1888mtg/>|group=notes}} in contrast to the existing wording, this took no account of where the ball pitched relative to the wickets.<ref name=1888mtg/> Further proposals included one in which the intent of the batter was taken into account, but no laws were changed and the MCC merely issued a condemnation of the practice of using pads for defence. This reduced pad-play for a short time, but when it increased again, a second pronouncement by the MCC had little effect.<ref>Brodribb, pp. 243–44.</ref>

Further discussion on altering the law took place in 1899, when several prominent cricketers<!-- The source names Mr. V. E. Walker, Mr. R. A. H. Mitchell and the Hon. Alfred Lyttelton. --> supported an amendment similar to the 1888 proposal: the batter would be out if the ball would have hit the wicket, where it pitched was irrelevant.<ref>{{Cite web| last = Pardon | first = Sydney H| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/150159.html| title = High scoring and the law of leg-before wicket| work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year =1899 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 5 March 2012}}</ref> At a Special General Meeting of the MCC in 1902, [[Alfred Lyttelton]] formally proposed this amendment; the motion was supported by 259 votes to 188, but failed to secure the two-thirds majority required to change the laws.<ref name=B244>Brodribb, p. 244.</ref><ref>{{Cite book| editor-last= Green |editor-first= Benny |title = Wisden Anthology 1900–1940| publisher = Queen Anne Press| location = London | year = 1982 | page = 6 | isbn = 0-7472-0706-2}}</ref> [[A. G. Steel]] was the principal opponent of the change, as he believed it would make the task of the umpires too difficult, but he later regretted his stance. Lyttelton's brother, [[Robert Lyttelton|Robert]], supported the alteration and campaigned for the rest of his life to have the lbw law altered. As evidence that pad-play was increasing and needed to be curtailed, he cited the growing number of wickets which were falling lbw: the proportion rose from 2% of dismissals in 1870 to 6% in 1890, and 12% in 1923.<ref name=B244/> In 1902, the proposed new law was tried in the [[Minor Counties Cricket Championship|Minor Counties Championship]], but deemed a failure.<ref name=B244/> An increase in the size of the stumps was one of several other rejected proposals at this time to reduce the dominance of batters over bowlers.<ref>Birley, p. 199.</ref>