Cricket 1883

DEC. 27, 1883. CRICKET; about “ a kind of throw,” and when we use a number of words which are really not known in cricket, and apply them to certain processes which we do not like. The words “ shy ” and ‘ ‘ chuck ” are common amongst people who are severe critics of certain kinds of bowlers. Law X. appears to teach that if balls are neither jerked nor thrown, they are bowled. These other terms, if they mean anything, should have a place iu the law ; if they mean nothing particular, they should be left out of the con­ troversy. The article which W as' quoted in Chicket for November 29th, from the Australa­ sian, on the “ Draft Code of Rules,” contains this sentence, “ Happily, here in Australia, we have no throwers, nor even chuclcers.” The credit for this is given to umpires who, years ago, took a firm stand against players who attempted these reprehensible practices. If chucking is different from throwing, the law should say so ; and if it is wrong', the law should forbid it. But let us remember what Mr. Py­ croft says, in Cricketana , about Clarke, the great slow bowler. “ Clarke’s bowling was de­ livered from the hip, with a little chuck or fling from the hand.” I never heard that Clarke’s bowling was considered uufair. The word “ shy” is equally open to objection. In certain matches I have heard the manifold umpires of the ring shout “ Well shied.” But be it remembered that the word “ sh y” w'as formerly applied to bowling, which is now con­ sidered perfectly fair. When Denison made his vigorous protest against round-arm bowling, he said of Mr. Knight, “ If ho finds a man hits his balls away he will without hesitation throw his hand and his arm as it were over his head, in otherwords, shy at the wickets.” Mr. Denison objected to a high delivery, not merely because it was contrary to law, but because it was shying. The nomenclature of cricket has not grown as fast as its processes have developed. The word bowling was adopted from the game of bowls, which flourished in England before cricket had settled down to a game with names of its own. The earliest bowling that we know anything about was all along the ground. That was bowling .pure and simple. In Love’s poem we read about the ball— Four times from Hodswell’s arm it skims the grass. As the style of bowling changed, the old name was kept. Jerking was tried and stopped; though, as we have seen, everybody was not satisfied. Philosophical views about a kind of jerk kept some people discontented. David Harris introduced length bowling ; but his style was underhand, and not round-arm, as Lord Harris implied in his recent article. Nyren is clear about that, “ His mode of delivering the ball was singnlar. Ho Would bring it from under his arm with a twist, and nearly as high as his arm-pit, and with this action push it, as it were, from him.” The first man who tried round-arm bowling was Tom Walker. He did not get his hand high, but kept it very much lower than the shoulder, about level with the hip. Still it was called throwing, and Tom was stopped. Now the great fact to be remembered is that every kind of bowling except underhand has been called throwing, and there is not a good bowler living to-day whose bowling would not have been called throwiug at some period of the past. There have been bowlers who were manifestly unfair, because they violated rules which regulated the height and position of the hand at the time of delivery; but besides objec­ tions on this perfectly legitimate ground, their bowling was condemned as throwing. The bowling which Nyren, Denison, and a host of other eminent authorities have written against and denounced as throwing, was bowling which would be called perfect bowling at the present time. If it was throwing then it is throwing now. The rules of cricket have never permitted throwing of any description. But it was not WEEKLY RECORD OF throwing. The word was handy, is handy still, and I am afraid will continue to be handy, and will be freely used by those who wish to con­ demn varieties of bowling which they do not like. I do not say bowlers never throw—I should be a foolish man to make any such assertion; but I have heard a bowler hooted when he took a wicket, though the ball was fairly bowled; and I have heard authorities on the game, equally eminent, and equally well-placed for noticing a man’s delivery, differ in toto about the fairness or otherwise of the bowler’s style. This is what puzzles the umpires, for they differ in opinion too, being influenced by their patrons, and are paralysed by conflicting suggestions. This is better than it would be to have as many living commentators on the laws of cricket as there are commentators on disputed passages in the classics, if the living commentators put their private views into practice. Then we should have matches played according to M.C.C. laws, as interpreted by Smith, Brown, or Robin­ son. Cricket was played in a similar way at the first. Clubs did not play uniformly, but according to their own ideas. A reversion to original types in this case is not desirable. I plead for definitions ; but go the right way about them. The mistakes of the past have arisen from the' process employed. Cricketers have said such and such things are bowliDg, and all the rest is jerking or throwing. Now start at the other end, and say such and such things are throwing, and all the rest is bowling. The history of the game shows that bowling is only a term of convenience. Strictly speaking, round-arm and- overhead styles of delivery are not bowling ; but the cricket world has agreed to keep the old name, though the thing is changed, and one word implies a variety of processes. Mr. E. M. Grace’s lobs, and Ulyett’s high delivery are both called bowling, but they are not alike in any essential particular. But is there not one quality which characterises the real throw ? Eor the real throw the arm must be bent, and then the elbow stiffened at the moment of delivery. Other methods of propul­ sion may look like throwing, but resemblance is not identity. I think a committee of cricketers could agree upon a definition of the real throw, if they would devote themselves to that, and not attempt to restrict bowling. The difficulties in the past arose from the fact that advocates of chauge wanted only to justify some peculiar fOrnTof bowling. If- they had defined the real throw they would have left unprohibited some possible forms of : bowling which they had no desire to see. But we want to see any kind of delivery which is neither throwing nor jerking, If shying and chucking designate objectionable forms of delivery, let these terms be put in the laws, and also defined. But I think throwing and jerking would exclude what is objectionable. Tell umpires what you mean by them, and I believe they would do their duty. But do not blame a worthy set of men who are called upon to be judge and jury while the law is in a vague condition. I can find nothing in the laws of cricket about methods of bowling until 1816. Before that date the umpires must have decided what was right or wrong. This evidently was not satis­ factory, or the new law would not have been introduced. But see how it restricts oowling— “ The ball must be delivered underhanded, not thrown or jerked, with the hand below the elbow at the time of delivering the. ball. If the arm is extended straight from the body, or the back part of the hand be uppermost when the ball is delivered,, or the hand horizontally extended, the umpire shall call 1 no-ball.’ ” The framers of that 14w prohibited what they wanted to prohibit. They thought it was all that was necessary to ensure true bowling, and in that they were mistaken, but they did not lack elear- THE GAME. 453 ness. The law was shortened in 1831—“ The ball shall be bowled. If it be thrown or jerked, or if any part of the hand or arm be above the elbow at the time of delivery, the umpire shall call ‘ no-ball.” Of course the laws say nothing of the clamour which was going o n ; but every­ thing unusual was called throwing, and cricket was said to be doomed. In 1845 another controversy was raging, and the literature of the time is full of charges of throwing; but an alteration of the rules was made. The hand was not to be above the shoulder in delivery. But this clause was added to the law—“ Whenever the bowler shall so closely infringe on this rule in either of the above particulars (throwing, jerking, and height) as to make it difficult for the umpire at the bowler’s wicket to judge whether the ball has, delivered within the true intent and meaning of this rule or not, the umpire shall call ‘ no-ball. ’ ” In 1863 a circular of instructions was issued to the M.C.C. umpires, enjoining them to be very strict; law X. as we have it now was passed in 1861, but in 1862 John Lillywhite had no-balled Willsher at the Oval for breaking law X. as regarded height of delivery, and because he would not change his opinion, another umpire was employed on the third day. Suppose they make me umpire, shall I give satisfaction ? I am afraid not, unless I have a definition of throwing to guide me. At the Lancashire and Notts match in Manchester last August, the Notts men were practising in the luncheon time, and for fun, I suppose, the bowlers threw at the wicket. It was not like any bowling I have seen in a match. When I was at the Oval during the Surrey and Lancashire match, and the people were yelling, the secretary asked them not to do so. One man said, “ He is not bowling, he is throw­ ing.” The secretary replied, “ Do you know what throwing is?” That might be said to a great number of people in these days; perhaps it might be said to me. But suppose they make me umpire! E. O. P o w ell (King’s), took his B.A. degree at Cambridge on December 13. F. M. L ucas (St. John’s), took his B.A. degree at Cambridge on December 13. J. R. W atson (Emmanuel), took his B.A. degree at Cambridge on December 13. R eg en t’s Pabk Senior Association — On December 6 , an adjourned general Meeting of this association was held in St. Andrew’s School­ room, Wells-street, Oxford-street. The follow­ ing clubs were represented:—Gray’s Inn, Bloomsbury, Tavistock, Fostat, Foster’s and Co., S. Andrew’s, Seymour, St. Mary’s, Tolmers, Elm, Chandos, 'Winchester, Great Western Railway, Silver and Electro Plate Trades, Whit­ field, York, St. Panoras, Griffin, King’s Cross, Archon, Glen, St. Mary’s Institute, Quebec, Trinity Church, Star, Albert and Endeavour. The report of the committee, who at the last meetingwere elected to wait upon the Right Hon. G. A. Shaw-Lefevre, the Chief Commissioner of Works, was r&id. The petition was most favourably received by the Office of Works, a distinct promise in the first place having been given that in future the match ground shall be repaired prior to Christmas instead o- in Apr of each sniecssive year as 'heretofore. Ibe more important complaint which the petitioner's, had to make of las over-' rowdc-d late of ti e ground on match days and practice nights, the Chief Commissioner proposes to meet by withdrawing his sanction from all clubs to use the ground who have not at least twenty enrolled members. Another reform which is also promised is that in future no club will have preference over another in the choice of the patch of ground upon which it has to play, as the rule of “ first come first served ” will be strictly adhered to. Next Number of CRICKET will fee published Thursday, January 31