An unsavoury business this leg-theory controversy—or body line argument, according to taste—but, how. lever great may be the temptation to lretrain from comment when there is Jo free for-all debate, or the equally [compelling impulse to join issue in ithe hope of saying something that }will stop the jangle, if only temper ily, there is a different consiteration when the matter comes up offljclally. This journal no more than a ]week ago was taken to task severely Jand at great length by a correspond-Jent with whose views it was not Prepared to agree, and especially be-Jeause*ft insisted that the one retponsible authority as regards. English jericket—the M.C.C.—had refused even to admit the existence of so-called body line bowling and accordingly had lined to legislate against it. Now, jo on to-day's Sports Page, the Imperial Cricket Conference (England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, and the West Tadies) has re: {jected @ suggestion made by the AUstralian delegates for the adoption of Jo new law by which umpires would "no-ball" a bowler it they consider him intimidating the batsmen. What better proof? Not only has the MCC. Met recognised the existence of body-line bowling (and therefore bowling which might be classed as unfair), but the Imperial Cricket Conference, com Posed of delegates of all the greater cricket-playing units of the Empire, Possibly has recognised that such Practice exists, but by a majority has refused to legislate against it. The Inference is that the Conference considers leg theory bowling—or body-me, if £0 it must be ealled—perfectly fair, And s0 would nine people out lof ten if they really knew what is leg-theory, sts purpose, and how it oriinated,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.