Cricket 1893

“ T o g e th e r jo in ed in cr ick e t’s m a n ly to il.”— Byron • No. 343 VOL. XII. R egistered lo r T ransm ission A b roa d . THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1893. PRICE CRICKET NOTCHES. B y t h e R e v . R . S . H o lm e s . I have received a quite unique letter during last week, written by and signed (in full) by two ladies, and illustrated by the daintiest sketches (cricketical) in waters. I should not have made it public but for the fact that it was written to set myself and others right on a matter of publio interest. It is delightful to come across ladies interested in the literature of the game: in my own home they are fond enough of watching it being played, perhaps that is the reason of my being at Scarborough just now : sometimes I have placed this journal on their table opeLed a t“ Cricket Notches,” the only notice taken of it hitherto Las been to deposit it in the waste- paper basket. But here are my un­ known correspondents waiting: I apologise for any apparent dis­ courtesy ; “ As two constant and eager readers of your delightful ‘ Notches/ we are ‘ not argry, but sincerely grieved ’ to hear that you were not at Old Trafford duriDg the late con­ test between Lancashire and York­ shire. We are sure that if you had, you would not have written what jo u did about Mr. Jackson’s dis­ missal in the second innings. And since \*e were fortunate enough to see every ball in the matoh (from the Ladies’ enclosure) this is our true and impartial report. Oakley, from the Trafford end, bowled a ball which hit Mr. Jackson on the leg and went on. The bowler ap­ pealed for lbw, the umpire said ‘ out,’ and then, correcting himself, ‘ not out,’ whereupon Mr. Jackson ran for a leg-bye. But Mr. Sellers refused to move, so that the only thing for Mr, Jackson was to get back aB fast as possible. Before he could do so his wicket was thrown down by Tinsley. Our observation is supported by the Manchester From a Guardian. The report in C r ic k e t agrees with your statement that 4Mr. Jackson thought he was out and left his crease; * but this cannot possibly be correct. He ran from the Stretford end of the pitch, where he was batting, to bis partner Mr, Sellers at the Trafford end. Now you, who are so familiar with oar ground, well know that that is not the way to the Pavilion. Please forgive our writing at such length, but we feel that the honour of the Red Rose is at stake, and we Lancashire folks are proud to think that every man in our team is a thorough sportsman, and would scorn to take advantage of an opponent’s mistake. Besides, when we remember how often your ‘ Notohes ’ have defended that much-abused man, the umpire, we are sure you will be glad to learn that there was no possible doubt about this par­ ticular decision.” And here’s a rap of the knuckles for the Tykes: “ Don’t you think some of the York- M R . C. J. K O R T R IG H T (E sse x ).—See p. 374. Photo, by J. Weston &Son , 20a , Sandgate Road, Folkestone. shire sympathisers have forgotten their usual generosity in their disappointment ? Anyhow, if Yorkshire had won, Lancashire would have congratulated them far more cordially than they have done Lancashire.” And here's a further addition to cricketana: “ May we add another to the list of three-day innings ? On June 23, 24 and 25,1892, Frank Sugg made 107 (not out) for Lancashire v. Surrey at Old TraJford.” And here’ s “ a question which has puzzled us. When a batsman is caught out—but, while the ball is descending, runs one run and thus changes ends—ought not the batsman who is not out to return to his original end ? He generally stays where he is. The Laws say nothing about it.” No, not directly; but Law 31 states, that “ if the batsmen have crossed, he that runs for the wicket which is put down is out,” &c. Evidently then, after crossing , each batsman’s wicket is that he is making for, not that he has left. I suppose all cricketers are aware, by-the-bye, that according to the Laws it is possible fo : both batsmen to be out at one and the same time from one and the same stroke , I had never discovered this until quite re­ cently. Kindly read Laws 26 and 30, note them very carefully. From No. 26, “ the striker is out if either batsman wilfully prevent a ball being caught.” The striker is out, observe, from his partner’s delin­ quency. But from Law No. 30, "either batsman is out if he wilfully obstruct any fieldsman.” In other words if A and B are batting, and A obstructs the field, B is out by Law 26, whilst A is out by Law 30. I don’ t suppose for a moment that these Laws were intended to give a double decision of thi3 sort; if they were not, and only one batsman can be out at a time, then Law 26 may be cancelled as superfluous because included in Law 30. Another proof that the Laws stand in need of a further revision. But to uncontroversial topics. Here are a couple of cricket pro­ blems for youthful minds to work out. No. 1. A bowler does the hat trick ; each of his victims has scored 19 runs. How is this pos­ sible ? No. 2. The safest bet under the sun. If any man will lay you 10 to 1 that you don’t name each bats­ man’s score in every first-class match through the entire season, take him on. But what figure to append to each batsman ? Ay, there’s the rub. I must apologise for this hint, inasmuch as I have no patience with the association of betting with cricket. There was a time— Mr. Pycroft calls it rightly “ Dark days of Cricket,” when bookmakers were much in evidence up at Lord’s. Very rightly what is for many of us a quite sacred spot knows these unholy intruders no more, and never will again. Talking of old MS. cricket books referred to by Messrs. Daft and Gaston, reminds me of a very precious newspaper cutting book in my