Cricket 1883

452 CEICKET; A WEEKLY RECOBD OF THE GAME. DEO. 27, 1883. T09 wickets in 3263 balls for 981 runs and an average of exactly nine runs. For the Mel­ bourne Club, during 1881-2, he had the capital average of 41,28 for 23 innings, and during that season he twice got into three figures, ri iking 112 against fifteen of South Melbourne •In iors, and 102 against 13 of Williamstown. ■ ; was specially appointed by the Melbourne Club to look after the Hon, Ivo Bligh’s Team in the Colonies last winter, and not only by his useful assistance as a substitute in the field, but specially by the great interest shown in every­ thing that could contribute to their comfort,won the gratitude of every member of that party. So much impressed, too, were the committee of the Melbourne Club with the extent of his services during this tour, that, as was men­ tioned in the last number of C ricket a 3 um of £200 was unanimously voted to him. He is a capital all-round cricketer. He can punish loose bowling severely when he gets set; is very useful as a change bowler (fast round-arm), and an excellent field, working very hard in any position. In commenting on the grant made by the Melbourne Club, “ Felix,” in the Austra­ lasian, wrote, “ Throughout his wanderings with the Hon. Ivo Bligh’s team he undoubtedly proved that he was the right man in the right place, and I know that every member of the English team had a good word to say for him,” His personal popularity with every member of that team should be a sufficient credential for his hearty reception here. H I G H S C O R I N G IN A U S T R A L I A . EAST MELBOURNE v. FITZROY. This match, which was for the M’Lean Chal­ lenge Cup, was played on the East Melbourne ground on Saturdays, 13, 20, and 27 October. At the end of the third day Fitzroy gave up the match, and East Melbourne accordingly won by an innings and 601 runs. It was remarkable for the heavy scoring of the East Melbourne team, who obtained no less than 680 runs, of which P. Lewis contributed 237. The “ extras ” numbered 68 . :— F itzr o y . First Innings, Second Innings. Topping, b Midwinter.. . . 15 st Lewis, b Midwinter 11 Showers, b M’Shane .. .. 10 Mien, c Hastings, b M’Shane 3 Lowe, b Midwinter . . . . 0 not ont.............................. 1 Shea, run out.....................................7 Phillips, b Midwinter .. . . 8 c Boyle, b Midwinter 0 Prentice, not o n t..................7 b Midwinter .. .. 0 [layes, b Midwinter .. . . 2 b Trapp ......................8 Atherton, b Midwinter .. 5 c Robertson, b Trapp 5 Newman, b Midwinter.. .. O B 2, l b l .............................3 B ..................................4 Total 55 Total 24 E ast M elbo u rn e . Oroube, b Atherton .. 55 Hcott, run out .. .. 77 Horan, run oat .. .. 49 Lewis,c Allen,b Phillips 287 Hastings, b Atheiton .. 8 Trapp, c sub., b Lowe.. 65 Musgrove, b Phillips .. 48 llobertson, b Phillips .. 18 M’Shane, c Showers, b Phillips . ..................53 Boyle, c aud b Phillips 2 Midwinter, not out .. 0 Extras.............................68 T o ta l....................680 The Hon. Ivo Bligh left London last Thurs­ day for Australia. He will, we understand, return by the commencement of next season. The twelfth annual dinner of the Beea’ Club was held on the 14th inst. at the Freemasons’ Tavern. On the 14th inst., Mrs. Chester, grandmother of the Surrey professional, died at Kingston She was in her 101st year. B o yle & S cott ’ s A u str alian G u id e for 1882- 8 :’,. just published. Can be had of W . B . Wright, at the office of C ricket , price 2s. 6 d. S U P P O S E T H E Y M A K E ME U M P I R E ! B y T homas K eyw orth . I t was not my idea ; I hope I am too modest a man to put myself forward, or suggest that I ought to occupy any position of importance. It is true that many of my friends are prepared at a moment’s notice to take the place of judge in one of the High Courts, or to command the Channel Fleet, or to do anything which is sup­ posed to require special aptitude and training; but their readiness is no rule for me, and I would rather linger in the background. But people are continually saying, 1 ‘ The only hope of cricket is that gentlemen umpires shall be appointed.” I heard it all last summer, and I am still hearing it now that winter is upon us. I have ventured to suggest that it may not always be easy to find men whose known ability and probity would give more confidence in their decision that is now manifested towards those of professional umpires. Then the question is asked, “ Why should not you be an umpire?” Perhaps the men who ask this question really mean, Why should not they be umpires ? But the way in which they speak brings home to one the possibility of being placed in the position which they indicate; so I have said to myself, more than once, suppose they make me umpire! If no special difficulty presented itself, there would be nothing alarming about the idea ; but when a modest man is put forward to supply j the short-comings of somebody else, he ought very carefully to survey the ground, and take stock of his qualifications to perform what is required. The cry has gone forth that profes­ sional umpires have failed to do their duty, therefore gentlemen umpires should be appointed instead. It is always implied that the substi­ tutes would give satisfaction. Lack of know­ ledge is not charged against the professionals, but an unwillingness, for various reasons, to give decisions against certain bowlers who deliver the ball unfairly. The gentlemen would have no such unwillingness, and therefore all difficulty would be overcome. But would they have no unwillingness, and would the difficulty be overcome ? I once heard two politicians arguing about the House of Lords. One of them proposed to make it more Liberal by bestowing peerages on a number of Liberal commoners ; and the other said, “ It would not act, those who were elevated wrould soon be more Conservative than the rest.” Experience shows that it is possible. Perhaps, in the same way, gentleman umpires would offend more than the professionals do in the very points which have recently given dissatisfaction. I have seen the bowlers against whom there is now the chief outcry play in matches where gentlemen were umpires, but I never knew those bowlers to be no-balled. It is this bowling question which makes me tremble when anybody tells me I ought to be umpire. I am not a partisan, and that increases my difficulty. Who does not admire the wit of the man who said, “ Hear only one side of a question, if you hear both sides you are sure to be puzzled.” It is easy to find an umpire who will no-ball a particular bowler without com­ punction, or another who will let the same bowler do anything he likes. Umpires of these kinds are abundant, thanks to the party feeling which is prevalent, but such umpiring is not wanted, and will remedy no evils. I suppose the proper derivation of umpire is the one which makes the word mean “ not even,” or the “ odd man.” The umpire is not to play for his side, neither is he to represent any fashionable opinion of the hour; he is to see that the laws of cricket are observed, and his own interpretation of those laws must be his guide. If he manifestly fails in his duty he ought not to be employed again. But let us be sure sure that he does manifestly fail. It is not simply that he refuses to hold the opinions of a party, but that he gives decisions contrary to the laws, or what is practically the same thing, he neglects to give decisions which the laws demand. At the present time, cricket controversy gathers about Law X .; and it is because of supposed or real offences in connexion with that law that anybody has ever dreamt of suggesting me for an umpire. This has made me pay some \ttention to Law X., and the more I have ixamined it the less I have admired the friend­ ship of those who thought I should stand for­ ward and bear the brtfnt of these difficult times. Smith says it is as easy as A.B.C. But I long since learnt to be suspicious about things which were said to be easy as A.B.C. If a man tells you there are no two opinions about a question, depend upon it the question is a very vexed one. It is not fair to say that Law X. is clear and sufficient for all the purposes of cricket. It was introduced to meet a difficulty, and it has been altered time after time because the difficulty increased. The form in which it stands now, and in which it has stood since 1864, is one which throws on individual umpires the task of supplying definitions to terms which learned men have refused to define. There is not much trouble at the present time about the word jerk, simply because fast underhand bowl­ ing is almost extinot; but when it was preva­ lent, jerking was as often the name given to the delivery of certain bowlers as throwing is now to that of others. David Harris, the greatest of the old bowlers, was said to jerk, though it was impossible to prove it, and his warm admiier, Nyren, never suggests that he was guilty of such misdeed. But other people said he jerked, and the same charge was brought against a number of the old, fast, underhand bowlers. When we read about them we are told that they delivered the ball with a kind of a jerk. There was a rough and ready test for jerking in the last century; if a man was suspected, he had to wear a black sleeve on his bowling arm, and his side was chalked ; this would soon show whether the arm touched the side. But some people talked about “ a kind of jerk,” and this would apply to men who could safely undergo the test of the chalk. Nyren says of Richard Francis, “ He was a fast jerker; but though his delivery was allowed to be fair bowling, still it was a jerk.” So there were differences of opinion in those days, and the decisions of umpires about fair and foul deliveries were notalwaysacceptable. It is when men talk about “ a kind of jerk,” and “ a kind of throw,” that the puzzling element comes in. Almost anything may be called a kind of something else. If fast underhand bowling comes up again, how must I decide about jerking, supposing I am made umpire. Mr. Pycroft refers with approval to an umpire who did not need to see the arm toueh. the side in order to decide about a jerk. Ho said “ I say it is a jerk because it is a jerk.” This is in the commentary on Law X ., in the iCrftl'rt Field. But James Lillywhite’s commentary on the same law in the Cricketer'* Annual, is “ A jerk would be clearly shown by the arm striking the bowler’s side before delivery of the ball.” Every term used in cricket should be author­ itatively defined. This, and this alone, would give umpires a chance of giving satisfaction. How are they to act when a great deal is. left to thei; individual opinions, and when they know that any decision which they can possibly give on some disputed points will by some people be stigmatised as unfair ? It is not true that defi­ nitions are impossible. Whatever can be under­ stood can be explained. The simple fact is that there is no such thing as unanimity atout the. proper application of Law X. Men of ability and experience are not agreed about the nature of a jerk. They are much less agreed about the nature of a throw. The puzzling element comes in when we talk Next Number of CRICKET will be published Thursday, January 31.