Cricket 1884

JAN. 31, 1884. CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 7 *£C0 I^E gP0 ]ME ]S ICE -i> We are not responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents. No communications can be in­ serted unless they bear the name and address of the writer, as a proof of good faith, not necessarily for publication. THE NEW CODE. To t h e E d it o r o f “ C r ic k e t .” S ir , —Will you let me make one or two suggestions about the Laws of Cricket. Regarding rules for one-day matches— “ 3. One-day Matches if not played out shall be decided by first innings ”—I would not object to see added—“ Unless one inn­ ings of the side defeated in the first innings shall be larger than_ a completed innings of the other side.” It is clear that if Law Two, as proposed, were carried out, all interest in One-day Matches would cease. I cannot imagine anything more likely to bring about the decline of cricket. It would however tend greatly to keep up the interest of One-day Matches to the end, if the following addition were made to Rule 1 concerning them ; “ but a side defeated on first innings by less than 60 runs, shall have the option of putting their opponents in.” This would prevent the absurdity of a strong side being defeated by a few runs on one innings, being obliged to add to the certainty of their own defeat by their own good play in the second innings. To Law 34 it should be added,— “ But any.'batsman may retire from the wicket altogether whenever he pleases, and has the option of not taking his innings at ail.” This is indeed involved in th# law ; but practically not taken advantage of. Indeed, I have heard its fairness questioned. It seems to me that as many matches as possible should be decided. Draws are most unsatisfactory. What is the use of a bats­ man or a side piling on runs when the question is not runs, but time ? A distinct declaration in the Rules would lead to its being the practice to play to win, far more than it is now. I am satisfied that the great danger to the popularity cricket is in, is the increased number of unfinished matches, owing to the goodness of grounds perhaps more than to any other cause. For myself, I confess I do not care for the game when no issue but one of those odious “ draws ” is probable. Indeed I should like to see some change in the direction of preventing draws, like that lately advocated by Knowledge. The best proposal seems to me to be that no side shall score more than 100 runs during the tenure of the wickets. Each side would then at least get some fielding, and runs would not he piled on against tired out bow­ ling and fielding. There is not much cricket worth playing after 250 runs at a time, is there? But I fear this is too radical a proposal. In Law 35, after “ injury,” I would in­ cline to add “ or in the case of a runner, if the batsman states that he is unable to run for himself without danger to health or limb.” There are a good many cases of weak hearts or old sprains where the vio­ lent strain of a sharp run should be avoided; and yet it is good for these people to play cricket. By not allowing them a runner a temptation is put on them to do a dan­ gerous—possibly a fatal thing ; and, besides, we cannot afford to lose cricketers. To a person fond of the game it would be a per petual sword of Damocles over his head if he were to know that any bad knee or ankle strain, or any heart weakness, would stop his cricket for ever. Law 36 prevents advantage being taken by sending in the fastest runner of the side. I grant that advantage may even then some­ times be taken by dishonest people ; but it is surely better to suffer this evil than to cause a greater one. Law 35 as it stands certainly leaves a loophole for leave being given; but I fear that a custom has been creeping in of objecting to runners by per­ sons who think more of a particular match than of the broad interests of cricket and cricketers. To Law 42 should; be added— Or at the option of the Captain of the side prepared to play, the entire time lost since the fall of the last wicket shall be added to the time at which the stumps are drawn.” The penalty as it stands is too severe to be enacted, but the manner in which time is sometimes wasted by a side trying to sneak out of a virtual defeat is disgraceful, and the penalty which I propose is not at all too severe for the offence. By Law 2, 1st, in case of one batsman failing to make good his ground, and coming back to the end from which he started, no run has been made which comes under the definition. Certainly law 46 may remedy this. But really by law 2, umpire should call “ two short,” for no run has been accom­ plished. It should run. But if either batsman shall, in the opinion of the umpire, unintentionally fail to reach his ground in making a run, and return to the other end, the umpire shall call “ one short.” It is clear that, if one batsman ran the double run correctly, and the other merely came a yard out of his grovind, i.o run would have been made at all. Where, then, is the line to be drawn ? Not of course of much practical importance, but still the rule should be correct.—Yours, &c., H e ly H. A lm o n d . FAIR BOWLING. To t h e E d it o r or “ C r ic k e t .” S ir,—As coming events east their shadows before, so the approaching visit of the Aus­ tralians brings us face to face with the subject which is now foremost in the minds of all cricketers, viz., the question whether or no Crossland is a bowler. If he is it must be admitted that he is the best professional fast bowler, in addition to being a tolerably good bat, and as such he should be selected to play for the players, and also for England against the visitors. In justice to the man himself, therefore, the Committee of the M.C.C. should have this question determined finally at the first match in the season in which he plays, by giving the umpires selected for that match clear and definite instructions. It is obvious from what has already taken place that unless the pro­ fessional umpires selected are elearly made to appreciate the fact that they will be supported, things will go on as they have been going on in the past, and there will be the danger of a disturbance similar to or even worse than that which occurred at the Oval in the match Lancashire v. Surrey last season. The fact that Notts, the premier county, has refused to meet Lanca­ shire next year, shows also the importance of the point being decided definitely, and that this will only be done practically by distinct instructions being given to the umpires by the M.C.C. is clear. I observe that the first match in which Lancashire is engaged next season is against the M.C.C itself, and under the circumstances the point should then be decided, and it is to be hoped that the Club will not let the opportunity slip. Having regard to the unanimous resolution passed at the meeting on the 11th inst., instead of acting on the old rule, the effect of which was that unless the umpire was satisfied that the delivery was unfair he should allow it, the instruc­ tion as it appears to me should now be—If you have any doubt at all as to the fairness of the delivery you must no-ball the bowler. —Yours, &c., A.H.H, T IP S FOR C R ICK E T . In view of the approach of the cricketing season, and the carrying of Loid Harris’s Resolutions, we can recommend the follow­ ing providers of the various necessaries re­ quired :— For Bats—The Zoo. For Balls—Willis’s Rooms. For Stumps—Mr. Eskell or Mr. Moseley. For Bails—Sir James Ingham. For Wicket-keeper—The Highway Board For Long Hops—A New Year’s Party. For Sneaks—Any Irish Informer. For Point—A Gaiety Burlesque. For Long Leg—Mr. Fred Vokes. For Short Leg—Mr. E. Righton. For Slip—Messrs. Waddell. For Pitch—An honest Tar. For Break—The Ring. For Umpire—Sir James Hannen. For Score—Sir Arthur Sullivan. For Gloves—James Mace, For Pads—Any M.F.H. For Long Stop—The British Forces in Egypt For Rouiidhand—Joseph Gillott. For Underhand—Mr. Parnell. For Byes—The Civil Service Stores. For Wides—Mr. Pope, Q.C, For Field—A Pony. For Twist—The Vestrymen of Clerkenwell. For Side—A Prompter. For Play—Messrs. Wills and Hermann. For Drives—The Duke of Beaufort. For Cuts—Sir Prescott Hewett, For Catches—The Glee Union. For Misses — The Queen. J?or Muffs—The International Fur Company. For Duck’s Eggs—The Aylesbury Dairy. For Run Out— lolanthe. For Not Out—The Claimant. Punch. B r a d fo r d C lu b . —The annual dinner and meeting of this club took place on Friday evening at the Boar’s Head Restaurant, Bradford. The Committee, in their annual report, regrettedhavingagain to announce that the first team had had a very unsuccessful season, as out of twenty-four matches only three were won, whilst five were lost, and sixteen drawn. The balance-sheet showed that for the season 1882-3, £437 10s. 9§d. had been received from the football com­ mittee ; the athletic festival realised £103 9s. nett; rents, £152 5 s.; gate-money at cricket matches, £1,348 12s. 6^d.; life memberships, £61 8s. 6d. ; members’ subscriptions, £250 8s. 3d. The total income, including sundries, was £2,357 2s. 2Jd., and the expen­ diture amounting to £1,494 3s. 0|d. A balance of £862 19s. 2d. was left to be applied to a reduction of the club's debt for buildings, ground, <Sic. The report and balance-sheet were adopted. Next Issue of CRICKET will be published Thursday, February 28.