 Several proposals were made to prevent pad @-@ play . At a meeting of representatives of the main county cricket clubs in 1888 , one representative expressed the opinion that a " batsman who defended his wicket with his body instead of with his bat should be punished " . The representatives supported a motion to alter the law to state that the batsman would be out if he stopped a ball that would have hit the wicket ; in contrast to the existing wording , this took no account of where the ball pitched relative to the wickets . Further proposals included one in which the intent of the batsman 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 . 
 Several proposals <a href='uninflect' title='1'><mark>were</mark></a> made to prevent pad @-@ play . At a meeting of representatives of the main county cricket clubs in 1888 , one representative expressed the opinion that a " batsman <a href='null_relcl' title='2'><mark>who</mark></a>defended his wicket with his body instead of with his bat should be punished " . The representatives supported a motion to alter the law to state that the batsman would be out if he stopped a ball <a href='null_relcl' title='3'><mark>that</mark></a>would <a href='been_done' title='4'><mark>have</mark></a> hit the wicket ; in contrast to the existing wording , this took no account of where the ball pitched relative to the wickets . Further proposals included one in which the intent of the batsman was taken into account , but no laws <a href='uninflect' title='5'><mark>were</mark></a> 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 . 
Several proposals was made to prevent pad @-@ play . At a meeting of representatives of da main county cricket clubs in 1888 , one representative expressed tdaopinion dat a " batsman defended his wicket with his body instead of wit his bat should be punished " . Thdaepresentatives supported a motion to alter the law to state that thedatsman would b out if he stopped a ball would done hit the daket ; in contrast to the existing wording , dis took no account of where the ball pitched relative to the wickets . Further proposals included one in which the intent of the batsman was taken into account , but no laws was changed and the Mdamerely issued a condemnation of the prdaice of using pads for defence . This reduced pad @-@ play fa a short time , but when it increased again , a second pronouncement by the MCC had little effect .