Cricket 1887

9 CRICKET: A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME. APRIL 21,1887, partner; the umpire was an old professional cricketer employed by the firm as timekeeper. He gave the captain out l~.fr.w., and was dis­ charged from his employment on the following Saturday. This l.b.w. is a fertile cause of dis­ pute. Every habitu6 of Lord’s and the Oval will remember how at one time the greatest cricketer of this or any other agewould fre­ quently create a scene on the ground by loudly contesting the point as to whether he or his partner was out in thia manner,' Certainly, the rule is very unsatisfactory, for if a man cannot be out l.b.w. unless the ball “ inthe opinion of the umpire at the bowler’s wicket shall have been pitched in a straight- line from it to the striker’s wicket,” how can a man be out from a bowler who bowls round the wicket from the extreme edge of the crease ? Yet undoubtedly many men unfairly make a practice of standing with both legs clean in front of the wicket, and would never, or hardly ever, score a run legitimately, i e ., by defending the wicket with the bat. Rules made for underhand and the old style of round-arm bowling from the hip don’t fit in with the present style. If, on the one hand, the batsman and his side are to reap the advan­ tage of scoring by snicks and by-e runs which would never-have come off the old-style of trundling, so also the boWler' should derive some advantage from the increased labour and skill involved in his new mode of attack. It has long been known that this is the view taken by our best professional umpires, and the lengthy discussion in the columns of the Field some six years back—arising out of a decision piven by the present writer when umpiring in a match at Barnes—showed that the large bulk of our amateurs, including Lord Harris, are of the same opinion. Referring again to umpires not daring to be impartial. In a match at Weybridge in 1876 or 1877, between- Weybridge and a London club, one of the prominent members of that year’s Oxford eleven played for the former. He was caught at the wicket first ball, and," without waiting to hear the umpire’s—their own—decision, started to walk away from the wicket. To the intense surprise of every man in the field, and to none more so than the striker, the umpire called “ not out.” The fortunate batsman scored 45 after that, and Weybridge won by 14 runs. Over a confi­ dential glass after the match the Weybridge umpire said he “ oouldn’t nohow have afforded to have given he out afore he scored.” And this was not the only evidence of his fear to be fair that this match afforded. There was no return match played. Sometimes “ fools rush in where the wise fear to tread.” Thus on the famous day when his Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar attempted to ride over the cricketers in Regent’s-park, and, with his entourage , had to fly before bats and stumps, two working men’s clubs met to play a match. One side had no umpire, but a fear­ less youth volunteered to act if told what he was to do. “ Well,” said the captain of tho * * *, who was also their crack slow bowler, “ when I’Ve had six balls (it was a Saturday afternoon match), you cry ‘ Over,’ and when I say *How’s that? ’ you cry ‘ Out.’ ” The end' of that match was not peace. On another occasion, at High Barnet, a rather nervous umpire had been so over cautioned as to have become bewildered. An appeal was made for a palpable catch by “ third man.” Fairly flustered out of what senses he ever possessed, the unlucky umpire electrified everyone by shouting, “ Wide ! no-ball! not out! Time ! ” Old cricketers at Lord’s wHl remember old Tom Barker, many years on the staff of the M.C.C., and once a prominent member of the Notts Eleven. Old Tom had a rare, fine crusted stentorian voice, so much so that Mr. Dark used to say he, at Lord’s, always knew when Barker had arrived in London, through hearing him call for a cab at Euston. One day Barker was umpiring in a match between two school teams, and the reverend gentleman who was the principal of one of the schools was playing. Having but a rudimentary idea of the game the parson would not remove his bat, contenting himself with simply holding it in the block hole. This annoyed the boys, who loudly protested against his style of play. At last he appealed to Barker. “ Here,” exclaimed our elderly novice, “ the boys say that if I don’t move my bat I’ll be out.” “ Can’t say about that,” roared Barker, “ but you’ll very soon be out if you do.” The year that Jupp, owing to Pooley’s absence, kept wicket for Surrey, a very curious incident occurred at the Oval.* The match was Surrey v. Gloucestershire, and Mr. W. G. Grace was batting; In playing a ball forward it got up and lodged in his shirt. Mr. Grace and his partner (his cousin, Mr. Gilbert) at once commenced running, and might have kept on until time or exhaustion compelled them to stop for anything anyone could have done to make them Had the batsman removed the ball himself he would have been out “ handling the ball,” aswould also his partner had he done so for him. Of courso the fields­ men could not take it, as that would have been ‘ obstructing the striker,” although what penalty such offence would entail, on the offender would puzzle all the umpires in the world to define, just as in the case of the infringement of Law 14 by one of the players in the Rugby v. Marlborough match at Lord’s last summer. At first the crowd looked on in puzzled silence. There were Grace and Gilbert running, that was clear enough; but why were the Surrey men almost passive, and where, oh where, was the ball ? Presently the truth dawned on their minds, and the welkin rang with shrieks of laughter. At last the batsmen stopped, and, in the plaintive words of the Sportsman reporter, “ Jupp approached W. G., and pathetically implored him to be allowed to remove the ball.” It has been urged that Jupp should have called “ Lost ball,” but a reference to the vague phraseology of Law 34will show that this case, like scores of other eventualities which are constantly occurring, is not provided for. It would not, of course, be possible to provide for every chance or eventuality; and, as Lord Harris has found in trying to suppress unfair or doubtful bowling, in which attempt his Lordship has certainly failed, satisfactory alterations in the existing rules are difficult to devise. But, still, many of the laws of cricket are eminently satisfactory, and do not work [*Was not this at Clifton.— E d .] well. Improvement is certainly possible, and it might be suggested to Mr. Henry Meyers Hyndman, a decade or two back captain, and a good one too, of the Sussex County Eleven, that he .might try his ’prentice hand, in im­ proving these before remodelling the laws of society. “ It would be an easier task than the establishment of Socialism, and far more suit­ able and congenial. How many ways can a man be out at once ? In 1882, in a match at Merton, Harcourt v. Merton Institute, a batsman was certainly out in four distinct ways. He skied the ball, which was an easy catch for the wicket­ keeper. Seeing this, the striker? struck the fieldsman in order to prevent fiim reaching the ball; then struck the ball again, skying it again, and started to run; the wicket-keeper succeeded in catching the ball, and, seeing tho striker out of his ground, put down the wicket; whilst a general shout went up of “ How’s that ? ” The umpire very properly gave him out, “ Obstructing the field,” that being not only the first in point of time, but also a practical punishment. Next came, “ Hit the ball twice,” next “ Caught,” and last “ Stumped.” TEDDINGTON CLUB. F ix tu r e s f o r 1887. April 11—Teddington, v. Molesey April 16—Teddington, v. Malden W anderers April 16—Richm ond, v. Richm ond Town Assoc. April 23—Teddington, v. Heathfleld April 30—Teddington, v. Strawberry H ill May 7—Teddington, v. Oakleigh Wanderers May 14—Teddington, v. H am pton W ick May 14—Ham, v. Ham May 21—Tedding ton,v. University College H ospital Way 21—Feltham , v. Feltham May 23—Teddington,v. St.Bartholom ew’s H ospital May 28—Putney, v. L. & S. W . Railway May ho—Teddington, v. Middlesex H ospital June 4—Teddington, v. London International College June 4—Twickenham, v. St. Mary’s Club June 7—Teddington, v. St. Mary’s H ospital June 11—Teddington, v. Bartholomew’s H ospital June 11—W andsworth, v. Heathfleld June 18—Richm ond, v. Richm ond June 18—Teddington, v W imbledon Spencer June 20—Teddington, v. Clapham W anderers June 22—Teddington, v. St. Martin’s Athletics June 25—Teddington, v. St. Thom as’s H ospital June 25—Thames D itton, v. Tham es D itton June 30—Teddington, v. Middlesex H ospital July 2—Teddington, v. University College H ospital July 2—Roeham pton, v. Roeham pton July 9—Teddington, v. Richm ond July 9—Shepherd’S Bush, v. St. Stephens July lO ^H am pton Wick, v. Hampton W ick July 16—Teddington, v. Upper Sunbury July 20—Teddington, v. H ook July 23—Teddington, v. M erchant Taylors’ School July 23—W im bledon, v. W im bledon Spencer July 30—Teddington, v. Gryphons July30—New Malden, v. Malden W anderers Aug. 6—Teddington, v Finchley Aug. 6—Twickenham , v. St. Mary’s Club Aug. 13—Strawberry H ill. v. Strawberry Hill Aug 13—Teddington, v. Ham Aug. 20—Teddington, v. Richm ond Town Assoc. Aug. 20—Sunbury, v. Upper Sunbury Aug. 24—Teddington, v. St. Stephens Aug. 27—Teddington, v. Feltham Sept. 3—Teddington, v. Oakleiph W anderers Sept. 3—Kingston, v. M iddle Mill Sept. 10—Teddington, v. Tham es D itton Sept. 17—Teddington, v. L . & S. W. Railway R ICHARDSON ’S CR ICKET SPECIAL ITIES. In BAT The Patent “ C E N TU R Y ” Bat, very Spccial Handle. ( Te&timonial received from H. J. H. Scott , Esq., Captain 1886 Australian Team.) With finest blades, 21/- each (nett). Sole Licensed Makers—E. J. Page & Co., Kennington Park. In BALLS —The “ M AR VE L," double seam and warranted hard- wearing, 4/- each or 46/- per dozen (nett). The “ NONESUCH,” Catgut-sewn, splendid value, 5/- each, or 58/- per dozen (nett).. ALL-CAN E HAN DLED BATS, full size, 7/6, 10/6, 12/6, and 15/ In G A U N T L E T S —The “ PE RFECT-FITTIN G ,” from 8/- per pair (subject). In B A T T I N G G L O V E S -T h e “ W IN CHE STER,” w ith rubber secured against com ing off, red rubber, 8/6 per pair (subject). In C R E A S E M A R K E R S -T h e “ TROU GH ,” as used at Lord’s and The Oval, 10/6 ea h (nett). In C R I C K E T N E T S —Best quality, com plete, 6yds.-by-6ft., 10/6 ea ch ; 6yds.-by-7ft., 13/6 each (subject). Send for Price Lists before deciding where to buy. HENRY RICHARDSON (subject). Very Liberal Discount and satisfaction guaranteed- i SOUTHERN COUNTIES DEPOT for SPORTS and GAMES, i 77, FINSBURY PAVEMENT, MOOKGATE STREET, LONDON.