Editing Leg before wicket (section)

===Alteration to the law===
Between 1900 and the 1930s, the number of runs scored by batters, and the proportion of lbw dismissals, continued to rise.<ref name=B245/> Bowlers grew increasingly frustrated with pad-play and the extent to which batters refused to play shots at bowling directed outside the off stump, simply allowing it to pass by. The English fast bowler [[Harold Larwood]] responded by targeting leg stump, frequently hitting the batter with the ball in the process. This developed into the controversial [[Bodyline]] tactics he used against Australia in 1932–33.<ref>Frith, pp. 21–24.</ref> Some batters began to go further and preferred to kick away balls pitched outside off stump—reaching out to kick the ball instead of allowing it to hit their pads—if they presented any threat, knowing that they could not be dismissed lbw.<ref name=Appleyard>{{cite book  |last1 = Chalke  |first1 = Stephen  |last2 = Hodgson  |first2 = Derek  |title = No Coward Soul. The remarkable story of Bob Appleyard  |publisher = Fairfield Books  |year = 2003  |location= Bath |page = 177 |isbn = 0-9531196-9-6}}</ref> The authorities believed these developments represented poor entertainment value.<ref name=controversial>{{Cite web| last = Ross | first = Gordon| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152528.html| title = 200 years of laws: And lbw still the most controversial| work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1975 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 6 March 2012}}</ref> At the height of the Bodyline controversy in 1933, [[Donald Bradman]], the leading Australian batter and primary target of the English bowlers, wrote to the MCC recommending an alteration of the lbw law to create more exciting games.<ref>Frith, p. 240.</ref>

[[File:Bob Wyatt Cigarette Card.jpg|thumb|upright|left|[[Bob Wyatt]] opposed the revision of the lbw law in 1935 and campaigned against it until his death.|alt=A head shot of a man in a blazer.]]
To address the problem, and redress the balance for bowlers, the MCC made some alterations to the laws. The size of the ball was reduced in 1927, and that of the stumps increased in 1931,<ref>Birley, p. 252 and n. 7, p. 371.</ref> but the changes had little effect.<ref name=B245/> Between 1929 and 1933, county authorities conducted a trial in which a batter could be lbw if he had hit the ball onto his pads.<ref name=B245/><ref>{{Cite book | editor1-last= Swanton | editor1-first= E. W. | editor2-last = Plumptre | editor2-first = George | editor3-last= Woodcock | editor3-first = John  | title = Barclay's World of Cricket | publisher = Willow Books in association with Barclays Bank PLC | location = London | year = 1986 | edition = 3rd| isbn =0-00-218193-2| page = 697}}</ref> Then, in 1935, an experimental law was introduced in which the batter could be dismissed lbw even if the ball pitched outside the line of off stump—in other words, a ball that turned or swung into the batter but did not pitch in line with the wickets. However, the ball was still required to strike the batter in line with the wickets. The umpire signalled to the scorers when he declared a batter out under the new rule, and any such dismissal was designated "lbw (n)" on the scorecard.<ref name=B245>Brodribb, p. 245.</ref>

Several leading batters opposed the new law, including the professional [[Herbert Sutcliffe]], known as an exponent of pad-play, and amateurs [[Errol Holmes]] and [[Bob Wyatt]]. ''[[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack]]'' noted that these three improved their batting records during the 1935 season, but batters generally were less successful. There were also fewer drawn matches.<ref>Birley, p. 252.</ref> There was an increase in the number of lbws<ref name=B245/>— out of 1,560 lbw dismissals in first-class matches in 1935, 483 were given under the amended law. ''Wisden'' judged the experiment a success and several of its opponents changed their mind by the end of the season;<ref>{{Cite web| url = http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/151802.html | title = Success of the L. B. W. experiment| work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1936 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 6 March 2012}}</ref> batters soon became accustomed to the alteration.<ref name=B245/> Although Australian authorities were less convinced, and did not immediately introduce the revision into domestic first-class cricket,<ref>{{Cite web| last = Brookes | first = Wilfrid| url =http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/151803.html | title = Notes by the Editor | work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1936 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 6 March 2012}}</ref> in 1937 the new rule became part of the Laws of Cricket.<ref name=B245/>

According to [[Gerald Brodribb]], in his survey and history of the Laws, the change produced more "enterprising", exciting cricket but any alteration in outlook was halted by the Second World War. When the sport resumed in 1946, batters were out of practice and the amended lbw law played into the hands of [[off spin]] and [[Inswinger|inswing]] bowlers, who began to dominate county cricket.<ref name=B245/> The cricket historian Derek Birley notes that many of these bowlers imitated the methods of [[Alec Bedser]], an inswing bowler who was successful immediately after the war, but that the resulting cricket was unexciting to watch. The revised lbw law, and other alterations in the game in favour of the bowler, further encouraged such bowling.<ref>Birley, p. 272.</ref> The new law continued to provoke debate among writers and cricketers; many former players claimed that the alteration had caused a deterioration in batting and reduced the number of shots played on the off side.<ref name=controversial/> A 1963 report in ''[[The Times]]'' blamed the law for reducing the variety of bowling styles: "the change has led to a steady increase in the amount of seam and off-spin bowling. Whereas in the early thirties every county had a leg spinner and an orthodox left arm spinner, leg spinners, at any rate, are now few and far between. Walk on to any of the first-class grounds at any time tomorrow and the chances are that you will see the wicketkeeper standing back and a medium pace bowler in action&nbsp;... there is little doubt that the game, as a spectacle, is less attractive than it was."<ref name=1963game>{{Cite news | url = http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1963-07-12-04-001&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1963-07-12-04|title = Wider wicket experiment inconclusive | newspaper = [[The Times]]  | location = London  | page =  4 | date = 12 July 1963| access-date = 6 March 2012}}{{dead link|date=April 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}  {{subscription required}}</ref> Several critics, including Bob Wyatt, maintained that the lbw law should be returned to its pre-1935 wording;<ref name=1963game/> he campaigned to do so until his death in 1995.<ref>{{Cite web| url =http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/154191.html| title = Bob Wyatt (Obituary) | work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1996 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 6 March 2012}}</ref> On the other hand, Bradman, in the 1950s, proposed extending the law so that batters could be lbw even if they were struck outside the line of off stump.<ref>{{Cite web| last = Preston | first = Norman| url =http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152948.html| title = Notes by the Editor | work = Wisden Cricketers' Almanack  | year = 1952 | publisher = John Wisden & Co., reproduced by ESPNCricinfo |access-date = 6 March 2012}}</ref> An MCC study of the state of cricket, carried out in 1956 and 1957, examined the prevalent and unpopular tactic involving off-spin and inswing bowlers aiming at leg stump with fielders concentrated on the leg side. Rather than alter the lbw law to combat the problem, the MCC reduced the number of fielders allowed on the leg side.<ref name=Appleyard/>