Cricket 1893

451 CRICKET j A WEEKLY RECORD Gtf THE GAME, NOV. 30, 1893 the fitness of the ground ? ” These two Laws are scarcelycongruous asthey stand. Eead No. 6 thus. . . . “ unfit for play in the opinion o f the umpires , and then changed only by consent of both parties.” No. 9. Eolling Ground. A comment only here. Evidently, then, if ground has been already rolled at beginning of day, but rain falls before a ball has been bowled; then, should rain cease, ground can be rolled again on same day. No. 10. Fair Bowling. Why not define both a jerk and a throw ? especially the latter. From the earliest days, remember, any alteration of delivery lias been dubbed “ throwing.” Some years since at a meeting of County representa­ tives, specially called to decide in favour of fair bowling, Lord Harris, the leader of the fair-play party, was asked to define a throw. His Lordship replied that he was not ready with a definition. Bat surely a definition can be given; if it cannot, then nothing ought ever to be said about throwing; if it can, it ought to have been forthcoming on that occasion. A throwis simply the straighten­ ing of the elbow when propelling a ball, etc. Keep a stiff elbow, and you cannot throw. The wrist has nothing to do with a throw, any more than you can jerk a ball without bringing your arm against your person. I do long to see this addi­ tion made to the present Law. Let us know what a throw is. No. 11 wants a trifling addition, thus : “ The bowler should deliver the ball with one foot at least,"etc. That additionmakes it quite clear that the other foot may be either behind or in front of the bowling crease when the ball is delivered. For that is the accepted meaning of this law. Laws 11, 12, 13, 16, 17. No-Balls, Wides, and other Extras.—Classing all these laws together, I would suggest the lollowing alterations:— 1. Alter the first mention of No-Ball in Law 10, insert a general statement that no balls and wides count as runs to be scored to the out-fielding side. Th se last words do not occur anywhere, but they are necessary to the completeness of the fact. 2. Reckon (see Law 13) a No-ball and Wide as a part of the “ Over,” as they should be if they are penalized, and then put them down to the debit of the bowler, seeing that he alone is responsible for them. 3. Always count one run see Law 10) for every No-ball and Wide, no matter whether any bye or byes are run from them, else they are not penalized as they ought to be. Not from a No-ball should a run be added when the batsman hits the tame and gets a run or luns, for the fact of his not being out if caught, etc., from a no-ball is sufficient evidence against the bowler. If a bye is run from a wide, that should count two, either one each as bye and wide, or both as wides or byes, the same with no-balls. This law does not clearly state whether tbe hit from a no­ ball includes the one run scored for the no-ball. 4. In every case count overthrows as extras : they ought neither to go to the credit of the batsman, seeing that in a very large number of cases they are owing to the daring of the non-striker. Bat the responsibility for them attaches chiefly to the out side, aud it is unfair to make the bowler suffer (in his analysis) for others’ misdeeds. 5. In Law 17the ball must •' touch any part of the striker's person ; ” evidently, then, if a batsman deliberately kick a ball that is not on the wicket, that should not be reckoned a leg-bye, supposing a run be made. But should not such a deliberate act on his part be penalized in some way ? Law 18. Trial Balls. As batsman is allowed no trial ball, why should bowler either on or off the wicket ? Else what is to prevent him bowling such balls at the beginning of each over ? If the bowler , wants to loosen his arm, he can do so with- \ out bowling a ball. The latter part of this { Law wants enforcing in local matches, where, oddly enough, the umpire may often be seen using the bat when a bats­ man is out. Law 20. Wicket 1 down.” Does “ struck off” mean simply dislodged from its customary place, even though it may fall again into place ? or does it mean that bail must come to earth ? Bail has not infrequently been turned over in the air, and has then lighted in the old groove. It has also slipped down between stumps and got wedged there. In these cases is batsman out ? I answer, Yes; though probably most umpires would give him in. “ The Striker is out.” Here I want two new Laws :—(a) Should umpire, acciden­ tally or intentionally, stop the ball, and batsman be run out in consequence, what then ? Not out, I should say, Or should ball be caught, say by short-leg, after hitting some part of umpire’s person ; again, Not out. In the last 18 months I have wit­ nessed both such accidents, and the silence of the Laws led to a most un­ seemly show of temper. (6) On many country grounds there are sundry trees and obstructions on the play­ ing portion. Now, supposing there were no boundaries (I wish there were none on any ground), and the ball strike against any building or tree and then is caught, is the batsman out? The ball has not touched the ground. (Law 22). Or, where there are boundaries, and an out-fielder,standing within the boundary, nevertheless bends his body, and thus stretches his arm outside tfce boundary, and holds the ball, is batsman out ? I saw Gunn catch W. G. at Hastings some few years since in this way, and the champion had to retire, much to his annoyance. A Law on these mutters would be of great service. Law 22. Add after “ catcher,” “ and catcher's hand be on the ground at the time.” Law 23. Must tho ball be in that hand whose arm (say) knocks down the wicket? It does not state so. From this law, the ball may be in either hand, and yet the other arm disarrange stumps. I cannot decide which it ought to be, for in a majority of cases where the stumper is very quick, it is impossible for anybody to see whether the bails are knocked off by his hand or by the ball in it; especially is this so, when the ball is thrown from the off, and he has his back against the umpire, who has to decide, and who alone can see whether it is a ease of run out or not. Law 24. Leg before wicket. Perhaps the most unsatisfactory of the entire code, and in consequence the most lax interpretation is usually put upon it. As it stands, it certainly needs one alteration, “ or, if with any part of his person, except his hands whilst holding bat'." these words are indispensable, unless the hands be not reckoned a “ part of his person.” But my contention is with the Law as a whole. This is how it read in 1774; “ 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 hit­ ting the wicket.” Now, with all duo deference to the collective cricket wisdom of the past 138 years, I venture to prefer the old Law concerning l.b.w. to that now in vogue. Just omit the words “ with a desire to stop the ball, seeing that in sports one has nothing to do with motives, but only with facts, and I am ready to adopt the old Law as it stands. For, say what you will, the present Law renders l.b.w. impossible to any but balls bowled over the wicket, and pitched on the other wicket. It expressly states that the ball “ shall have been pitched in a straight line from wicket to wicket,” and wicket (Law Gj means the three stumps and not the entire space of six feet eight inches between the return creases. Again a “ straight line from wicket to wicket ” cannot mean (as I think the “ Old Buffer” would have us believe) animaginary rect­ angle formed by drawing lines from leg stump to leg stump, and fromoff stump to off stumps of the respective wickets ; in other words, pitched somewhere within a space 22 yards long, and 8 inches wide. If it mean that, it ought to say so. No, better not play fast and loose with plain words. No round-the-wicket bowler can possibly get a batsman out 1-b-w. And what about a bowler’s cleverest balls, those which pitch just off, or some inche3 off the wicket, and with break enough to hit wicket? These are also not “ pitched in a straight line fromwicket to wicket ” ; consequently batsman can defend stumps with his leg and with perfect immunity. Some would: they do, as we know.' When Wisden clean bowled all the ten South wickets in 1850, W.G. informs us that a friend of his told him that many of these wickets were taken by balls that came in “ from one to two feet ” from the off. And this ball he bowled right through the innings. Had those Southerners been alive now, they had learnt a trick or two from pre­ sent day batsmen. I remember the M.C.C. v. Australia match of 188L Cooper came over, with his mighty leg- break, perhaps the most astounding break ever seen. One of the M.C.C (I won’t mention his name, for he is too grand a sportsman to be classed among the legging batsmen) deliberately held his bat up, planted himself plump k’