Cricket 1893

ts T o g e t h e r jo in ed in cr icke t ’s m a n l y to il.”— Byron . No. 337 VOL. XII. Registered for Transmission Abroad. THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1893 PRICE 2d. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e B e v . R. S. H o lm es. The recent cpnfirmation by the M.C.C. of the resolution passed in 1888 respecting the lbw questiondemands the serious attention of all cricketers. That resolution runs thus: “ That the practice of deliberately defending the wioket with the person instead of the bat ia contrary to the spirit of the game and in­ consistent with strict fairness, and the M.C.C. will discountenance and prevent this practice by every means in their power.** Ana yet for five years nothing vital has been done; the evil is perhaps more glaring to-day than ever, spite of the repeated protests on the part of individual writers on the game. The truth is, the resolution above quoted is good enough as far as it goes, but it does not touch the root of the mischief. I am afraid it may share the fate of the “ throwing ” question which was brought so promineutly before us ten years ago. What a storm it raised 1 Letters innumerable were written, certain bowlers were held up to ex­ ecration, and a special meeting of County delegates was oalled. Among the suggestions thrown out the following come backto mind— Appoint amateurs as umpires, request the M.C.C. to enforce the law (No. 10), get the consent of the leading Counties not to engage unfair bowlers. And much besides one has en­ tirely forgotten. I took no part whatever in the controversy, and resolved to lie low until a more convenient season. Would it be believed that that inatter was never honestly faoed, and just because no authoritative defi­ nition of a “ throw ” was ever given ? Indeed nobody seemed to realise that only such a definition could settle the dispute. 1 now say in publio what I then said in private: “ Define a throw first of all, and then we shall be in a position to pronounce an honest verdict.” Every new style of bowling, re­ member, has been at first tabooed as throw­ ing. I remember at the meeting of the County representatives, Lord Harris, who had taken the initiative in the agitation, was asked how he would define a throw. His lordship simply replied that this was setting him a very arduous task, and that he ^as not prepared with such a definition. Then why. all this bother about certain well-known bowlers? You must accurately diagnose a case before you can apply a remedy. The result was thatnothing practical was done; no bowler was evei “ called ” for throwing. The question was shelved fo r a time by the meanest and most cowardly dodge—for it was nothing better—vi£,the disqualification of one notorique offender on the ground of a violation of one of the laws bearing on County Cricket. And for ten years peace has reigned in the cricket world. The evil may start up afresh at any time, however, and where shall we be ? My contention has always been this—tell me what you mean by a throw, then I will tell you whether some bowlers bowl fairly or unfairly. It would be interesting if, say, fifty ex­ perienced crioketers would send in a defini­ tion. I drew up one years ago (I shall not produce it here), and according to that definition, I can sincerely affirm that I have never once in my life seen a bowler “ throw ” whilst playing in a first-class match. Now is this lbw question to share a similar fate ? We hope not. If our hopes are to be realized, something must be done over and above the resolution passed at Lord’s last week. Suppose, in the place of issuing instruc­ tions to umpires, the law itself—No. 24—were first of all dealt with. Is that, as it stands to­ day, perfectly satisfactory? For instance, what does this clause mean—(the ball) “pitched in a straight line from it (the bowler’s wicket) to the striker’s wicket” ? Does the bowler’s wicket here mean the three stumps only, or all the space between the two return creases—in other words, 8 inches or 6feet S inches. If 8 inches, then a bowler must bowl over the wicket to get a verdict of 1 b w ; if 6 feet 8 inches, then another term should be substituted for the “ bowler’s wicket.” Again, what is meant here by “ in a straight ine ?”. Can it include balls that pitch straight, and then break away from the straight line ? If so, why not include balls that don’ t pitch straight, but by means of a break work into the straight line, and would, if not obstructed, hit the wicket ? Believe me, I have not the slightest wish to quibble about trifips, but the laws must be explicit before they can be rightly applied. This matter touches the very life of the game, and cricketers all over the world are clamouring for a more reliable state of things. During the winter I have been solicited by earnest questions relating to this lb w law, from correspondents wTriting fromMandalaySliore, Burmah ; Hobart 'Town, Tasmania; and Forest, Ontario. I wish I coaid send them satisfactory replies. All I can say is, there is a certain law—No. 24— liable to any degree of abuse, and umpires are helpless to remedy this abuse as the law now stands. One gentleman asked, “ What would you do supposing they elected you as umpire?” if in an ordinary club match—nothing; but if in a first class county match, I would just take the law into my own hands, and interpret it as I feel sure the original framers intended, and I would give any batsman out who, standing before his wicket, stopped with his legs, any ball, whether delivered round or over the wicket, whether pitched in a straight line to his wicket or a foot off it ; no matter whether he did so deliberately or inadvertently* There would be a big row, of course, and I should at once be made a target o f; but I would risk all consequences in order to uphold the “ spirit of the game,” and because I detest cheating in any form. Why not revert to the original law of 1755, which reads thus—“ The striker is out if he puts his legs before the wicket, with a design to stop the ball, and actually prevents the ball from hitting the wicket.” Simple enough that, and as comprehensive as intelligible. So far as I can discover, the present law appears first in the year 1800. The old law would relieve the umpire of much responsibility. I am always sus­ picious of any law which, like Law No. 24, requires the aid of such inserted words as “ in the opinion of the umpire ”—they are tantamount to a confession of weakness somer where. I would take this opportunity of clearing up arrears, and beg to apologise to several corres­ pondents in far away lands for delaying so long to answer their questions. Perhaps it is better to introduce such topics at the begin­ ning of the cricket season than during the winter interval. I speak for only one indi­ vidual, and he may know next to nothing in cricket; so don’t follow his guidance, but rather think for yourselves, form your own opinions, and stick to them until a wiser head comes along. Here’s a curious incident that is reported by “ an old umpire,” hailing from Maritz- burg, South Africa. Enclosing his private card, he thus writes me:—“ Two batsmen having run out a hit for three, the umpire at each end called out ‘two short runs.’ ” How can they be reckoned ?j There would be, at first sight, four short runs, and yet only three runs would have been added to the score, had there been no default; can the score already made, i.e ., prior to this hit, be debited with this one run ? No, certainly not. And, as a matter of simple reckoning, there could not be four short runs in a hit for three, for each batsman only runs three half-runs, so that both batsmen together either run or do not run three whole runs. Supposing that only one batsman had run both runs short, the score would be debited with these two runs, really only one run and a half, seeing that in each oompleted run either batsman contri­ butes only half a run. But as there are no half runs put down on the score sheet, the one and a-half are increased to two, for conve­ nience sake. Here’s a sketch of cricket in Canada from a gentleman who write Jfrom Forest, Ontario, under date November 21, 1892: “ Local Canadian cricket would amuse you. The umpire is expected to call out the runs to the scorer, e.g.\ •'Three to Smith,’ or ‘ Four to-