Cricket 1883

428 CRICKET; presence in England of such a team as that which covered itself with glory on the Oral will do more to make Australia known and appreciated through­ out the world than could the voices of 10,000 n.gents-general armed with rhetoric of the most brilliant character.” A N S W E R S T O C O R R E S P O N D E N T S B urton L a t im e r . —The wicket-keeper bad returned the ball to the bowler and in the meantime the batsman went forward to patthe wicket, which was playing falsely. The bowler at once threw the ball over the batsman’s head to the wicket-keeper,who put down the wicke*. (The ball was dead, having been finally settled in the bowler’s hands.) T.W .H.—Tho bowler in delivering the ball disarranged the wicket with his foot, the ball bowling the batsman, who left his wicket not noticing that the bails were off at the opposite end. Was the batsman out, or was it a no­ ball ? The umpire observed the occurrence but made.no remark.—(The batsman was out. It is a thing of frequent occurrence.) S. P. D avis (Salisbury).—In the progress of a match here one of the batsmen was very energetic in “ backing up.” The bowler, wish­ ing to get rid of him, several times pretended to deliver the ball, and then turned back for the purpose of enticing the batsman out of the ground and then knocking his bails off. He Went past the bowling crease each time, and the third time he did so the Umpire called “ no-ball,” whereupon arose a dispute as to whether it was a “ no-ball ” or not. (The Umpire was wrong in calling “ no-ball.” The ball had never left the hand of the bowler.) T. Pi'—A hits a ball and starts running. B also starts, but thinking it is not a safe run goes back. A in the meantime runs into B’s ground before the wicket at the other end is put down. Who is out ? (The batsman that is nearest to the wicket that is put down is out.) O. J.—When one bail is off is it necessary to knock a stump out of the ground, or is it suf­ ficient to knock the other bail off. (It is sufficient to knock the one bail off. B. J.—A and B were two batsmen. A was hit by the ball and lamed, and was allowed G to run for him. A hit a ball; forgetting that C was running for him,he also started and ran about 3 yards. C got safely to the bowler’s wicket,but the fieldsman returning the ball to the wicket­ keeper, the latter knocked the bails off before either A or B were in their ground. Of course, both were out, but which man ought to have retired, A or B ? (B is out.) A. G. W. ( S h e ff ie ld ) .— Will you kindly let me know in yonr next number of C r ic k e t , how many matches have been played between Notts and Surrey, from the commencement down to 1854 inclusive, with the years aud results in each. Also the matches between Notts and Kent from the commencement to 1854 inclusive, with the year and the results in each.—(Kent v. Notts—Mailing, July 27, 1837, Kent won by 9 wickets; Mailing, June 18, 1840, Notts won by 10 wickets ; Nottingham, August 26, 1841, Kent won by 22 runs; Canterbury, June 26, 1845, Kent won by an innings and 20 runs ; Not­ tingham, July 17, 1845, Notts won bv 8 wickets. No other contest took place between these two counties until 1863. Surrey v. Notts—Oval, July 17, 1851, Surrey won by75 runs ; Oval, June 25, 1852, Notts won by an innings and 43 runs ; Nottingham, Septem­ ber 2, 1852, Notts won by 10 wickets ; Oval, September 8 , 1853, Notts won by an innings and 12 runs ; Nottingham, July 3, 1854, Sur­ rey won by 97 runs; Godalming, August 24, WEEKLY RECORD OF 1854, Surrey won by 65 runs. The next match between these two counties took place in 1868). J.S.B, — Should a batsman be given out under the following circumstances? A ball having been bowled, the batsman from bowler’s end backed up for a bye. The long- stop returned the ball to the wicket-keeper, who also returned it to the bowler, without noticing that the batsman had not returned to his crease. But the bowler who was between the wickets (having followed the ball up after delivery) observing that the batsman had not returned to his ground, threw the wicket down. Is the batsman out ? (The ball is alive, and the batsman is run out.) B.H.—I suppose there is no cricket rule which can prevent the following:—A club, say A, go to the wickets and make ninety-eight. Their opponents, B, follow, and score about ninety for five or six wickets within ten minutes of the time fixed for drawing stumps. There­ upon A have recourse to dilatory tactics, hold conferences between each over, and their captain causes further delay by proceeding to the dressing tent to consult his watch as to “ really the right time.” The result is that when time is called, B have only been enabled to score ninety-seven, and A are able to effect a draw, as they resolutely decline to play another over. (There is no law against sucih unsportsmanlike conduct.) C h au fou r .— One minute before time an over is commenced. The first ball bowled takes the ninth wicket of the innings. The captain refuses to send his eleventlrinan to the wicket on the ground that time will havo elapsed when the usual two minutes are over. Is he correct, or can the other captain claim the match? (The captain is within his strict rights in declining to send a man in.) J. W . O l iv e r . — (1.) When a man is bowling round the wicket, can the batsman be out leg before, when the ball comes direct from the bowler’s hand on to his leg without touching the ground. (2.) Is a wide ball counted as one of the over. (1. Yes. 2. No). F airpi . a y .— In playing in a match at Nunhead I was called by my partner to run. This I did, but my wicket was thrown down before I was in. This would, under ordinary circum­ stances, be out, I know, but unknown to me the Umpire had called “ over” before I started, thus constituting in my mind a dead ball. Therefore I was not out according to Buie IV. Am I right in stating I was not out? (As soon as the Umpire calls “ over” the ball is dead, and the play is for the time at an end.) A. E.—A batsman plays the ball hard on to the ground, and starts for a run. The ball, how­ ever, stojis a few feet outside the popping crease, and in getting back to his ground the batsman kicks the ball into his wicket. He has reached his ground before the ball hits the wicket. Is he out or not ? (Not out.) G. B. S p r a y —In a match on August 25, the bowler bowled a ball; the Umpire said “ no­ ball,” but the batsman struck at the ball and got one run. There was a dispute about it— one Umpire said that only the “ no-ball ” was counted, the other Umpire said the “ no-ball ” was counted and the run put down to the batsman as well. (Only one run is to be counted. It is to be scored to the batsman, and not as a “ no-ball.” ) H. J. B.—A bowler bowled a ball with both his feet behind the bowling crease; the Umpire, called a “ no-ball.” Was he right in doing so ? (The Umpire was wrong.) C. E. H.—1. How many volumes of “ Haygarth’s Cricket Scores ” have been published ? 2. A run is made off a “ no-ball ” which is scored to the batter ; does the “ no-ball ” count in the over ? If so there is no other record than that THE GAME o c t . 25, 1883. there is five balls in one over. (1. Thirteen. 2. The “ no-ball ” does not count in the over.) 0. S. W . C obbold (Red Hill).—In preparing to strike at a ball which afterwards proves to be “ wide” (and is called as such by the Umpire) the batsman knocks his wicket down. Is he o u t; and, if so, why ? Ought the Umpire to call “ wide ” if he sees the wicket broken by the batsman during or immediately after the delivery of the ball ? (The batsman is not out, and it is a wide ball.) H. T. P roctor . —Our opponents wanted 30 odd runs and had one wicket to fall when tbeir Umpire called “ time ” in the middle of the over. It was not the bowler’s Umpire who called “ time.” They refused to finish, so are we entitled to claim the match on this ground. (If time was up the Umpire had a right to call it. A l f r e d M a r sh all (Driffield).—In a match the side that won the toss sent their opponents in, and entered the field with eleven men and dis­ posed of the batsmen in the usual way. After * the interval they commenced to bat, and for the seventh wicket a batsman appeared who had not taken part in the game before, and the captain refused to bowl at anyone but those who had fielded during the previous innings. What is the rule in such cases ? (Permission for a substitute to field not having been asked for, those only who actually did field have a right to bat.) J. C.—A batsman drove the ball which struck the Umpire at the bowler’s end on the head and rebounded straight into the hands of one of the field, who h<*ld it. Was the batsman out ? The Umpire who was struck was stunned for the moment and could not give a decision. The other Umpire gave “ not out.” This actually occurred a week or two ago. (The batsman is out—caught.) J e r e m ia h G o o d a l l .— The wicket keeper, after taking the ball from a fielder, made an attempt to stump the batsman by throwing at the wickets, which he failed to hit, and the ball being missed in the field, the batsman ran three runs for the overthrow. Would the runs so obtained be considered legitimate ones, or should the ball have been considered dead after being held by the wicket keeper ? (The ball was not dead, and three runs are properly scored for the overthrow). H. B. T id s w e l l .— Did MasSie come over with the first Australian team ? (No). “ F a ir p l a y .” — A batsman had a man to run for him (being lame). The bowler delivered a ball (to lame batsman) off which one run was scored, consequently both batsmen met at one end. The lame batsman then in retiring to the umpire to stand, went out of his ground, and the wicket keeper put the wicket down, the um­ pire giving it out, the (sub) runner being in his ground at the opposite end. (The- bats­ man is out, unless the umpire considered tho ball finally settled in tho wicket keeper’s hands) G. D. A r m it a g e . —J. G. in batting, receives a severe blow on the hand; after a slightpause, bedashes his bat on the ground and it knocks ‘ his wicket down. Is he out or not ? The op­ posing side say he is, alleging that the ball, not being dead, makes him o u t; has the ball being yet in play any thing to do with it ? (Not out. It is not in the act of striking that he knocks his wicket down), H. G. W a r n e . —(1) Can a batsman be “ leg before” to a bowler bowling round the wicket? (2) If in bowling, a bowler does not place either of his feet on'or over tho crease, does he bowl a no-ball ? (3) Is a batsman out, if, whilst running, he knocks his wicket down. (1. Yes. 2. No. 3. No).