Cricket 1883

OCT. 25,1883. CEICKET; A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME. 429 **C0I^KgPOpEpE-> THE NEW CODE. To t h e E ditor of “ C r ic k e t .” S ir , —I have read the proposed new Buies in C r icket , and as they have not made Rule X concerning the vexed question of bowling or throwing any more satisfactory,! have a sugges­ tion which I think might meet the case. The great difference between bowling and throwing is that in the latter the arm exerts the force by which the ball is thrown, whereas in bowling the body and legs ought to be alone the power used in delivering the ball, the arm being kept quite straight, so that I suggest that Rule X should read somewhat to this effect:—“ That the bowler shall deliver the ball with his arm extended straight, and if it is in any degree bent the Umpire shall call ‘ no-ball.’ ” Let anyone try for himself, he will find it im­ possible to throw a ball without bending his arm, and it is my belief that he cannot bowl a fair ball if he does bend his arm. If this is the case and the rule was made according to my sugges­ tion,the Umpire’s instructions would be clear and plaininstead of being very vague as they are now. Of course, this rule would refer to bending the elbow alone and not the wrist, and the value of it depends on the question whether it is possible for a man to bowl a fair ball if he bends his arm just as he delivers the ball.—Yours, &c., R in g w o o d . [It is quits true that a person cannot throw a ball without bending his arm, but a law against bowling with a bent arm would disqualify every bowler in England. Besides, is it likely that Umpires who neglect to call a man who throws without disguise, would call anyone for bowling with a bent arm ?— E d .] LAW TEN. To t h e E ditor of “ C r ic k e t .” D ear S ir , —I think everyone will agree with me that the question of fair bowling must be linally settled before next season. Lord Harris’ amendment to Law X seems to me the simplest and best way of solving the difficulty. Bowlers—like Caesar’s wife—must be above suspicion if cricket is to remain the fine manly game it always has been. Some people havj said that there would be no harm in legalising throwing, as batsmen are getting such an ascendancy over bowlers; I sincerely hope this idea will never be carried out, for it would soon put an end to the science and skill which our crack bowlers possess, and the best bowler (?) would probably be the man who could throw hardest aud straightest at the stumps. If bowlers do really want any assistance, let lie size of the stumps be increased, or tho law about 1 -b-w have a wider scope, so that a man should be out for obstructing with his leg any b dl that would hit his wicket—no matter whether it pitched straight or not. But, what­ ever is done let us keep up the art of real bowling, which is perhaps tbe best part of cricket, in that it calls for the greatest display of originality.—Yours, Ac., Tunbridge Wells, A. H. K in o . August 97. FIRST CLASS COUNTIES. To t h e E ditor of “ C r ick e t .” D e a r S ir , —I wr te to ask you if it cannot be settled in some way which are first-class counties and which are not. I notice that the Sportsman includes Somersetshire and Hamp­ shire a first-class but not Leicestershire, You in your statistics omit Somersetshire but include Hampshire in the magic circle. Then one or two papers exclude both Hampshire and Somer­ set shire. The three Cricket Annuals—the “ Companion,” the “ Annual,” and “ Wisden’s ” —also differed in their averages from the same cause. I think it would be much better to adopt some fixed rule in this matter to insure aecuraey in the statistics. Thanking you, in anticipation for inserting this,—Yours, Ac., Brighton, Sept. 6 . H. W. H a y n e s . OVERTHROWS. To t h e E d ito r of “ C r ic k e t .” S ir , —I am going to make a suggestion for the consideration of the Committee of M.C.C., who, as I hear, have in hand the revision of tho laws of the game. It is that overthrows should be counted as extras both in the score and analysis. It seems to me that this would rectify what is at present an anomaly. True the batsman would suffer, but on what principle should he for a hit only wortli one (perhaps not even that) be en­ titled to (say) five runs because the fieldsman endeavouring to run him out throws in the ball at random so that it goes to the boundary? Again why should the bowler suffer in his analysis to the extent of (in my example) four runs for a hit which, perhaps, had it been properly fielded and returned would have caused the batsman to be run out in attempting the first run. Lastly it would appear on the score sheet that so many overthrows wero run, and this, just as the record of byes spurs up the longstop, would tend to check random throwing and encourage backing up. A special record of leg-byes is kept for the sole purpose (so far as one can see) of relieving the longstop of the onus of runs which perhaps he conld not save. Surely the bowler is en­ titled to as much—nay, to more consideration. Against the objection to my proposal that it is a change—and this is the only valid objec­ tion I can see—I would urge first, that it is a change for the better, and secondly that it is but a change (and a very slight one) in the pre­ sent method of scoring, a method which I be­ lieve I am right in saying is established more by custom than by law, though perhaps a law aione could effectually change it.—Yours,&e., K. P. ANOTHER AUSTRALIAN TEAM. To t h e E d itor of “ C r ic k e t . ” S ir , —With your permission, I should like to say a few words about the proposed visit of another Australian team to England, and the monetary disagreement which seems likely to bar the way. Aud firstly, is it not rather infra dig for England to think of allowing such a visit, much more of encouraging it, until an English eleven has done in Australia what an Australian eleven has done here, viz., dofeated a picked representa­ tive team on their own ground. We Australians would be the more admiring aud satisfied, and you Englishmen the more sclf-hououring and honoured if the traditional esp • it dc corps were followed in this matter. And regarding the monetary disagreement, it is much to be regretted on many grounds, that the money element has to be introduced, but it seems unavoidable, unless, as I ventured last year to suggest, the M.C.C. acting in tho name of English cricket, and I am sure, in its best interests, should invite a team over upon such terms as the Colonial M.C.C. invited Lord Harris and the Hon. Ivo Bligh to Australia, regard being had to the faot that it is a greater sacrifice to most Australians to come here than it is for an English team of gentlemen to visit Australia. But in default of such an arrangement—surely it is in a spirit of justice, above all things, that the terms for their visit are to be made—and I am one of not a few who are curious to know, upon what grounds the Australian offer is declined. Who work the harder, run the greater risk of failure, have the greater expenses? In- comparatively, those to whom the English authorities would offer far less than half the gross receipts. And the receipts of last season would show that the lesser paid team is by no means the lesser attraction to the cricket loving public. The English offer is unfair on the face of it. Who will justify it? Thanking you for your kindness in inserting this, I remain, your obedient servant, “ S outhern C ross .” THE RULES OF CRICKET. To th e E ditor of “ C r ic k e t . ” S ir , —As the revision committee of the M.C.C, are good enough to invite comment on the result of their labours, which all cricketers cannot but welcome with gratitude, I make bold to submit, throughyour columi|is, the following suggestions, which have probably occurred to others, as well as myself. 1. Would it not be well to accept the almost universal practice of deciding unfinished one-day matches by the first innings ? If tbe revisionists stick to the principle of making the rules fit cricket as it is played, they can hardly do otherwise, since for one club that adopts the M.C.C. rule there must be hundreds that do not. Also, we Bhould get rid of the anomaly of occasional occurrence where a match is called by the M.C.C. a draw, and by their opponents a loss, or a win. If there are reasons that have not occurred to me for the retention of the present style by the “ Premier Club,” it would perhaps 'strike the happy medium to append a Rule III, to the suction devoted to One-day Matches One-day matches, unfinished through want of time, shall be decided by the first innings, unless the captains have previously agreed otherwise. ” 2. Should not a law be introduced legalising the arrangement of boundaries ? Such a rule might stand after the lost-ball rule (XXXII), and from a recent experience I should like to see it modelled somewhat after the same fashion, thus:—“ The number of runs to be allowed for boundary hits shall be agreed upon by the um­ pires before the commencement of the game. If the batsman shall have run more than the agreed number before either umpire or a fieldsman call ‘ boundary,’ or the number agreed upon, the striker shall be allowed as many runs as have been completed.” Frequent occurrence of such a case is not likely, but it has occurred. Playing a short time ago in a not well-kept ground where the boun­ dary, a hedge, was fringed with a margin of long grass, it was impossible for the batsmen to see where the ball stopped, and after running five for a leg-hit of my partner’s, wo were told that the ball reached the hedge, and that we were therefore, entitled to three runs. Also I should like to ask whether it is now customary when a batsman, hitting a no-ball, obtains runs from it, to reckon such no-ball as a ball—that is, to count it in the over? The rules do not seem to sanction such an idea, but I have heard it affirmed more than once.—Yours To th e E ditor of “ C r icket . ” S ir , —Agreeably to the gratifying invitation o • tho Marylebone Committee to all classes of cricketers to make suggestions upon their pro­ posed revision of the Rules of Cricket, I beg to inform you that I have been emboldened to write