Cricket 1883

dec . 27,1883. CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 457 they making a set, as was said, against one oi the professional bowlers. He had objections to the action of a great many professionals, and it was no fault of his.if writers kept harping on the name of one particular bowler. There was, perhaps, also an idea prevalent among thepublic that this agitation was raised against one county. He could say for himself that he had objections to bowlers of different counties, and had never stated objections to one county in particular. It was due to himself, who had raised this agitation, that he should set this matter right before the public. The only thing that he and those who agreed with him desired was that the law should bo enforced. If Australia could produce good bowlers and still observe this law, so could England. Their wish was to stop doubtful as well as unfair action in order to prevent its prejudicial effect upon bowling in the future. He had a proposition to lay before the meeting, but he would like first to hear the opinions of those present on the matter. He would endeavour in this discussion, as in every letter he had written, to avoid the mention of any names. Mr. A. B. R o w le y asked the Chairman how he could define a throw. The C h a ir m a n said this was setting him a very difficult task. He was not prepared to define a throw. Mr. B u r b id g e said that a certain number o f Marylebone Umpires, to whom special instruc­ tions had been given on the subject of bowling, had the bowling they were all thinking about under their supervision, and yet they had not stopped them. Mr. R o w le y thought the Marylebone Club ought to enforce its rule on this point, and, as they were looked up to, their action would be generally followed. The C h a ir m a n said the Marylebone Club had clone all they eorikl. They called their umpires before them, and impressed upon them the duty of stopping this doubtful bowling,; but these umpires had formed and acted upon an opinion exactly contrary to that of the cricketing world. Captain H o l d e n (Notts) said he was informed that one of these bowlers—Grassland—when he bowled at Lord’s bowled slow and fair. He had seen him at another place bowl fast and foul. Mr. A. N. H o r s e y (Lancashire) remarked that he had never seen Crossland bowl otherwise than fairly. The C hairman said he should propose that counties agree to discountenance to the utmost of their power unfair and doubtful action, and that where objection is raised to the action of any bowler by any county that at the following match in which he plays a representative from each of the counties who agree to this resolution should attend, and . the county employing this bowler of doubtful action should abide by the opinion of the majority, and if the majority say that bowler is an unfair bowler they should not employ him. Whatever the merits of this pro­ posal, he thought it was at least a practical one. Middlesex County had ceased to employ a bowler whose action was considered bv two or three others to be unfair. Their main object ought to be to prevent young fellows springing up with doubtful action, as it would spoil bowl­ ing in the future. A very eminent player had written to him saying that this resolution not to employ any doubtful b oiler would place his county at*great disadvantage, and that the only way out of the present difficulty was to allow bowlers to bowl as they liked, namely, to throw. It was a disgrace that cricket should have been managed in such a way in this country, that they had arrived at a time when, this should appear to an eminent cricketer the only way to settle the matter. Mr. R o w l e y pointed out that the Chairman’s proposal, if adopted, would take the matter wholly out of the hands of the umpire. The Chairman admitted that it would do this. Mr. B u r b id g e remarked that the umpires would then say, “ We have no business to look after this now,” and they would cease to be umpires in the most critical question of the whole game. Major F e l l o w e s (Hants) said he had heard first-class umpires say they wanted it taken out of their hands. Mr. B u r b id g e thought the best course to adopt was to get rid of the umpires who would not do their duty, and to employ others. Mr. R o w le y said that rather than adopt the Chairman’s proposal they had better go in for an Association, as in some other sports, and do away with the Marylebone Club. The C h a ir m a n did not consider it a fair suggestion to make against him, that he wished to attack the prerogative of the Marylebone Club. No one had insisted more than he on all public occasions upon the supremacy of the Marylebone Club in cricket. Captain H o ld e n remarked that the men who were violating the law were well known. Mr. R o w le y could not admit that they were violating the law, seeing that they had been declared by the umpires to bowl fairly. Captain H o l d e n maintained that Nash, Cross- land, and Watson undoubtedly violated the law, and he mentioned that happening four or five years ago to remark to Mr. Hornby concerning Watson “ he throws now,” Mr. Hornby replied, “ Yes, confound the fellow, he does not throw now so well as he used to bowl. ” (Laughter). Mr. B itrbid g e (Surrey) said the abuse was undoubtedly getting to an absurd pitch. He would have the duties of umpires strongly impressed upon them. If they did not stop an evil which was patent to everybody else, they should be got rid of and others employed. It would be well if each club would begin to watch the bowling narrowly, among its own bowlers. He Believed all the counties were anxious to put down throwing. They might not be able to define a throw, but they all knew what it was. Mr. J. S m ith thought it would be a good plan if the M.C.p., on the complaint of any county against a bowler, were asked to appoint represent­ atives to judge of this bowler’s action in the next match in which he was engaged. Mr, W r ig h t said the chances were thatin the next match he would bowl quite fail only. Mr. W ostin h o lm thought it would be found necessary to divide the duties, of umpire, and have O ne man to look after the action, and another after the feet of bowlers than to leave the power to other counties. Mr. C. W. A lcock (Surrey) seconded the reso­ lution. The counties were interested in encouraging legitimate bowling, and he thought therefore, that this was a proposal which ought to be accepted by the meeting. Captain H o ld e n did not think the adoption of the resolution would have the desired effect, for none of them would get up and admit that his county had employedmen who were doubtful. The C h a ir m a n said he was ready to make this admission. Mr. S m it h (Derbyshire) also said so. Mr, R o w l e y stated that he would also make it, (Loud laughter). Mr, W. G. G r a c e (Gloucestershire) asked if it was contemplated to leave the bowling to be watched by a committee, Mr, I. D. W a lk e r (Middlesex) said the opinion was becoming general that modern bowling was tending to destroy the game. Umpires had been appointed last year specially instructed to en­ force the law on this subject, but though in the opinion of the vast majority of cricketers certain bowlers, not confined to one particular county, had not bowled fairly, yet these umpires never “ no-balled” them, If the matter was left to the umpires it would never be settled. The reason that the Australian bowling was better than ours was that they bowled in the old way, He moved the following resolution— “ That the undermentioned counties agree among themselves not to employ any bowler whose action is at all doubtful,” Mr, B u r b id q e remarked that if after this a county insisted upon playing with unfair bowlers it would be noted against it. Captain H olden considered that if they watched the bowling they would abrogate a standing law of cricket, namely, that the deci­ sion of the umpire should be final. Mr. R o w le y moved, as an amendment, “ T bit the matter of unfair bowling be left to the M.C,C.” Mr. Walker’s resolution would take the matter entirely out of the hands of the umpire, and alter the rules oi the game. Mr. W r ig h t seconded the amendment. Mr. P e r k in s asked if it was meant by the amendment that if the Marylebone Club con­ demned a bowler he should not be employed again, Mr, R o w l e y replied that he should not be allowed to play again until he altered his delivery, Mr, B u r b id g e remarked that this resolved itself again into superseding the umpire, A vote was first taken on the amendment, for which Lancashire, Gloucestershire, and Notting­ ham voted, while Middlesex, Surrey, Derbyshire, Kent, and Yorkshire voted against it. Thus being negatived, the original resolution was put, and Nottingham joined with Middlesex, Surrey, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Kent in voting for it. It was therefore passed, Lanca­ shire, Gloucestershire, and Sussex did not vote, Mr. R o w le y (Lancashire) moved, and Mr. C ooke (Sussex) seconded, a resolution which was unanimously agreed to, namely, ‘ 1That the M.C.C, be requested to give instructions to umpires employed in county matches to carry out Law 10 strictly.” A vote of thanks having beon passed to Lord Harris for presiding, this particular meeting concluded, The six gentlemen who voted for this motion were Mr, I, D, Walker (Middlesex), Lord Harris (Kent), Mr. C. W. Alcock (Surrey), Mr, J, B, Wolstenholm (Yorkshire), Mr. H. Bromley (Nottingham), and Mr. S. Richardson (Derbyshire), The three counties that did not vote were represented by Mr, A. B, Rowley (Lancashire), Mr. H. Cooke (Sussex), and Mr. W, G, Grace (Gloucestershire), At a subsequent meeting for the arrangement of next year’s fixtures, the system of neutral umpires, instituted last year, was unanimously approved and its continuance agreed on, T h e West Kent Wanderers held their twenty- eighth annual dinner at the “ Ship Hotel,” Greenwich, on December 20th. Mr. E. S. Stidolph, the President, for the twenty-seventh time occupied the chair, and a most enjoyable evening was spent. T h e Committee of the Richmond Cricket Club have passed the following resolution :—• *‘ That the Secretary be authorised in the open­ ing circular to draw the attention of members to the increased width of bats, and to inform them that in future their bats must not exceed the authorised maximum of inches, and that the above be communicated to the secretaries of clubs with whom the Richmond Cricket Club play matches.” The umpires of the Richmond Club will also have strict orders to enforce Rule X, R ic h a r d H u m p h r e y , the well-known Surrey professional, has been engaged at Clifton College. The Cliftonians are fortunate in securing so capable and zealous a coach, and there is every chance that he will remain permanently at Clifton. C ricket .—A song written and composed by J H. Smith and dedicated to A. N. Hornby, Esq. “ It will be welcomed heartily by all lovers ®f the national British game.”—Era* Poet free, 18 stamps of author, 22, Glifton-streef, Wolver- Ininpton.— A dyt . Next Number of CRICKET will be published Thursday, January 31.