Cricket 1893

u Together joined in cricket’s manly toil.”— Byron • Registered Transmis^'on^Ebroad THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1898 FEICE 2d. CRICKETNOTCHES, THE LAWS OF CEICKET. (Continued and concluded.) B y t h e B e v . B . S. H o lm e s . Law 25. Hit Wicket. But what if batsman hit his wicket before the ball ia delivered ? Is he out ? Yes, I, as umpire, would say. But law simply says, “ If in playing at the ball.” Better change it to this form, “ If after bowler has started to deliver ball, or if inplaying at the ball and here, for the sake of pos­ sible disputes, add “ but not when running.” Laws 26 and30. Obstructing Field. Then both batsmen can be given out for one and the same violation. Law 26 enacts that the strik er is ont, if either batsman wilfully prevent, i.e., if the non striker do so. But Law 30 states that “ either batsman ” is out if lie —the actual culprit—wilfully obstruct any fieldsman. Let batsmen be A and B ; A obstructs field, then B (striker) is out by Law 26, and A is also out by Law 30 —which is impossible. The only satisfactory solution is to ex­ punge Law 26 altogether ; it is absurd to punish unnecessarily the innocent for the guilty. But we want an addition to this Law; for, supposing ball hit straight up (or nearly so), and should fall eitherjust where batsman was standing, or in a direct line for the top of his wicket, ought he to shift his position in the first case, and may he not in the second case (Law 27) “ wilfully strike it again for the purpose of guard­ ing his wicket ?" So add to Law 30, “ except in case provided for under Law 27.” Law 31. Though the following sugges­ tion may be inferred from this law, it would be as well to add it at the close of same, “ If batsman be caught out before he and his partner have crossed, the partner must return to his original wicket.” If the latter happened to be a first-class batsman, and ninewickets were down, and only a few runs were wanted to decide the match, it might make all the difference in the result whether he or the “ last mau in ” got the bowling. But perhaps the law purposely leaves this to the discretion of the batsman. Law 33. Dead Ball. Should not umpire’s decision make the hall dead, unless that decision is reversed by appeal to other umpire ?” I witnessed this inci­ dent a few years ago: bowler appealed for catch at wicket; umpire said “ not o u t t h e n—but not during the stroke— batsman stepped out of crease, stumper put wicket down, umpire gave him “ out.” I thought, very unfairly. The ball was dead in my judgment. So add, or insert, these words, “ or after umpire’s decision shall have been givej.” Law 34. Lost Ball. But ball some­ times lodges in batsman’s pad, or in his shirt; what then ? Ball could be “ re­ covered” in that case by fielder, but is that permissible ? An instance occurred twenty years agowhen Glo’stershire and Surrey were playing: ball, thrown in, hit W.G., and passed into the bosom of his shirt. He ran two more runs, andmight have kept on running until he dropped. Surrey men begged him to give themthe ball; W.G. very wisely refused, seeing that at that time —but not now (Law 29) — he might have been given out for handling the ball. Courtesy might constrain batsmen to shake the ball free, but there is nothing in the Laws to compel him. Such a case might well come under the definition of “ lost ball.” Then we should require these words inserted, “ If a ball in play cannot be found or recovered, or have by accident become lodged in the person o f batsm an." Law 35 reads thus (second paragraph) : “ But where the bowler is about to deliver the ball, if the batsman at his wicket be out of his ground before actual delivery, the said bowler may run him out; but if the bowler throw at that wicket, and any run result, it shall be scored ‘ No-ball.’ ” Surely not a no-ball. It is an overthrow. But the definition of a no-ball (Laws 10 and 11) assumes the ball is travelling between wicket and wicket, and made a no-ball because it is either jerked, or thrown, or delivered over the crease. Call this a “ bye ” if you like, but no more a “ no-ball ” than a “ wide,” or else jou must enlarge the definition of a “ no-ball.’’ Law 36. Batsman Betiring. To pre­ vent possible abuse add after “ shall not retire from his wicket,” except through illness or in ju ry .