>In this Brisbane Test, Aus finished 163 runs ahead on I1 and
>Eng was asked to follow-on.
>Day 2 was washed out. As far as I know, the limit for follow-on
>was 200 for 5 day games and 150 for 4-day games. By this time
>most Tests were 5-day affairs and in the I v WI instance in 71,
>Wadekar was able to enforce the follow-on despite being only
>170 ahead because the entire first day was washed out and
>the game had been effectively reduced to a 4-day match.
>What were the rules in force at the time of this Brisbane test
>which allowed Aus to enforce the follow-on?
That's a very good question. Like you, I had thought that by 1965-6 the
200 run margin was in force for 5 day Tests. However checking the Laws
in force at the time (the 1947 code, second edition) they don't specify
a 200 run margin. But looking in my 1967 edition of Wisden at the
Regulations for 1st-class matches (including Tests) used in England in
1966, on page 996 it says that an "experimental" Law 14 applied, with
the margin being 200 runs for a match of four days or more. It looks as
if for the 1965-6 series that experimental change - which of course was
later fully adopted - wasn't in force.
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist