Looks like Jon Thackray pre-empted what I was going to say about the
LBW law :-)
Regarding the decision concerning the batsman in a bygone match being
given out for Unfair Play under Law 43 after holding the bails on with
both hands, the modern equivalent, Law 42 (there is no longer a Law
43), makes no such provision. As far as I can see, these days he most
probably would be given out under Law 37 (Obstructing the Field),
Section 1 (Wilful Obstruction) which states:
"Either batsman, on appeal, shall be out Obstructing the Field if he
wilfully obstructs the opposite side by word or action."
I think that holding the bails on with both hands as the ball is being
bowled could just about be construed as a wilful obstruction to the
bowler's attempt to break the wicket by fair and accepted means of play.
:-)
Incidentally, my 1988 copy of "Cricket Umpiring and Scoring" (the
official textbook of the Association of Cricket Umpires) by Tom Smith
MBE says, in its discussion of Law 35 (L.B.W.), that:
"Of the ten Laws dealing with the ways in which a Batsman may be out,
none causes more worry to Umpires and Players than L.B.W." As it also
seems to create a deal of consternation amongst cricket fans world-wide
(especially when their team has just lost a Test series :-), I guess I
can't disagree too much.
Note: Ten Laws. However, in its discussion of Law 2, Section 9, this
book also deals with:
"...in addition to the normal methods of dismissal, the voluntary
retirement 'Retired out'..."
So while there are ten Laws which specifically deal with the normal
ways of getting out, Law 2 definitely provides for another in one of
its sub-sections, making a total of eleven possible methods of dis-
missal. I think I'll rest my case now.
<Alt>-<J> England to win the Ashes 6-0 <Alt>-<J> :-D
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wheeler, Motorola Ltd., Camberley, Surrey, England