Cricket 1893

TON « Together 'joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron • No. 348 VOL. X II Registered for TransmissionAbroad THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1893 PRICE 2d. CRICKET_N0TCHES. THE LAWS OF CBICKET. B y t h e B ev . B . S. H o lm e s . The earliest known Laws bear no date, nor has a printed copy of the same ever been discovered ; but they ap­ peared in the “ Cricketer’s Annual ” of 1851, and were copied by the laie Charles Box from a manuscript lent to him by “ the literary executive of a once celebrated cricketing family.” They may be read in the preface to “ Scores acd Bio­ graphies,” and in other treatises, and are well worth a careful study, even at this date. They were revised at the Star and Garter, Pall Mall, February 25, 1774, by a committee of noble­ men and gentlemen, and pub­ lished in a sixpenny booklet by one “ Williams, of Fleet Street,” in the year following. It is not necessary to notice here the countless revisions through which they have subsequently passed ; enough to state that in 1891-2 they w’ere submitted to the most careful examination by the Marylebone Cricket Club, and by them sent forth to the cricketing public in the form we now possess them. But, are the laws of to-day perfect ? They are perhaps more perfect than they ever were, but from some dozens of complaints, or rather sugges­ tions, that have been sent to me since these Notches were started, a further revision seems more than desirable. Several corres­ pondents have begged me to write a Commentary on the Laws, but I have always maintained that the Laws should be male so complete and so simple that a Commen­ tary would be superflous. What is intended for daily use by all sorts and conditions of men and boys, should at any rate be fairly intelligible, and capable of settling most disputed points at a single glance. It is for this reason—and in no spirit of captious criticism, rather with a con­ sciousness of unfitness for the task—that I venture to submit to all whom it concerns, the following alterations, in the shape of erasures and additions. My one qualification is continuous reading of the Laws—perhaps as many as fifty times A hthuii M old (L ancashire '. From a photcgraqh by IV. It Thomas, 41, Cheapside , I over—until I could almost repeat them [ 1from memory. For the sake of space I { shall not cite such Laws, in full as appear j to be defective, and for the same reason shall take no notice of the rest of the Laws as seem to be above criticism. I simply ask that all readers of this article will have before him the “ Laws of Cricket, as revised by the M.C.C., May 1891-2,” a copy of which can be found in any Annual published since that date; and that they will bear in mind that in this task, which makes no claim to be either final or infallible, much help, either directly or indirectly, has been lent by others. Law No. 1. Choice of innings. Should the toss always decide this ? In the “ 1775 ” Laws we read, “ the party which goes from home shall have the choice of innings.” Or, should not the side which lost the toss in the first match, have the choice in the return ? Where only one match is played during aseason, the toss should decide. In a climate like ours, a large num­ ber of matches are won and lost by the spinof a coin. We should then hear no more about “ Surrey’sconfounded luck,” etc. No. 2. 1st. Definition of a run. After “ from end to end,” add these words, “ except where a catch is made,” for in that case no run is scored, though both batsmen may have got home. No 5. The size of the bat. Why not mention the penalty for a breach of this rule ? And, to give it effect, why not request, or order, that either every umpire, or every clul, be pro­ vided with a guage and a foot- rule, and that no bat Ie used that exceeds the requind di­ mensions ? This Law is con­ stantly being broken, and with impunity. I have sometimes thought that the length of a bat should be left to the discre­ tion of the batsman. Gunn and Abel, for example, cannot do E.C. themselves full justice with bats of exactly similar lengths. Perhaps anincrease inthe height of abats­ man is deemed advantage enough to justify this small injustice; besides, the longer the bat, the greater the powers of hitting. No. G. The Wickets. Changing the Same (last paragraph).—Why, “ by con­ sent of both sides,” when Law 43statesthat “ the umpires are the sole judges of .