Cricket 1893

470 ORICKETs A WEEKLY RECORD THE GAME DEC. 28, 1893 Law 37 wants strictly enforcing. For instance, a batsman may not be well when the match begins, or he may be still disabled from injury received in a previous match: no substitute should under those oircumstances be allowed him, though it is frequently done. Cricket cannot be played too strictly : having Laws, see that they are faithfully obeyed. Law 39. Substitute for batsman. I would strike this out altogether. At one time I wanted this Law re-written so as to make it intelligible at a glance to any reader. As it stands now. there isn’t one cricketer in twenty that knows what it means. I have read it to scores of cricketers—including county players—to any number of umpires—including one officiating in a county match at Sheffield —and I have only come across one man who instantly explained it; one other— also a county (Southern) cricketer—said, “ I suppose it means,” etc.; and he was correct in his supposition. To everybody else it was so much Dutch. Let us look at the awkward second paragraph; here it is in full—“ if the striker be out of his ground whilst the ball is in play, that wicket which he has left may be put down, and the striker given out, although the other batsman may have made good the ground at that end, and the striker and his substitute at the other end.” Now what does it mean ? I may be wrong, but this is my interpretation: The injured batsman, A, receives the ball, and plays it for a single. Forgetting his injury, he runs, so does his substitute, and they both reach the other wicket in safety, whilst the wicket they left is also made good by the other batsman. A is out, however, for being “ out of his ground,” that is to say, he should not have left the wicket where he stood when playing the ball. Suppose, however, he had hit the ball harder, and two runs had been made both by himself and bis substitute, then he would not be out (I imagine) in that he would then return to “ his ground.” But surely, the Law ouaht to state clearly what is “ his ground,” both when he is batting and when his partner is the striker; it does nothing of the kind. But I would abolish this Law on ac­ count of unnecessary severity. If a man duly complete a run, he onght to get the full credit of it. It is quite penalty enough that, supposing in the excitement of the moment, he forget his injury, start to run, and then break down half-way, and so is (fairly enough) run out. He is handicapped sufficiently by requiring a substitute. Besides ought he not to be given out if he runs two runs? he has certainly left his ground, quite as truly as when he only runs one run. Suppose this should happen: A—the cripple—has started to run, and the wicket he has left is put down, before his partner (B), who is running for it, can make good his crease. Which of them is out, A or B ? A is by this law, whilst B is by Law 81. Then, as in a case noted above, they both are out. Reductio ad absurdum again. So knock out this Law 39. Law 41. Put those “ five runs ” down in the “ extras ” column ; or only so many to the credit of the striker as were run before the ball was thus stopped. Per­ sonally I see small necessity for the retention of this law. Isn’t a cap (or hat), if held in hand of fielder whilst he stops the ball, as much a “ part of his person ” as his boot ? I never remember this law being required in first-class cricket, although I. D. Walker was once unjustly penalised owing to his cap accidentally falling off and stopping ball. I wish, too, the Laws would somewhere state what gear cricketers may wear. If the stumper may field in padded gloves, why not any other fieldsman ? I mention this because some time since an appeal was made to me by the editor of the American Criclceter ; over there several cricketers have, or had, resorted to the use of gloves, which base- ballers find absolutely necessary. Is this fair ? So let the Laws tell us that the batsmen and wicket-keeper may use pads and gloves, but none besides. Law 40. At close of this Law add words that are given in the earliest code, “not even though the ball should hit his wicket, or be caught from stroke of bat.” This is implied in the Law, but no harm is done by being explicit. I want a Law, either here or elsewhere, that shall refer to obstruction on the part of any fielder, not stumper alone. Some fielders will talk to batsman whilst he is receiving ball. I have seen batsman, when running, baulked if not stopped by fieldsmen. As batsman is forbidden to obstruct fieldsman Law 26), surely the same prohibition should apply to latter in the event of his obstructing former. He could not be given “ out,” but five runs might with justice be added to the in-side score. Law 45 wants rigid, literal enforcement in every match ; there is a deplorable waste of time in consequence. I would also fix by Law the interval for luncheon, and also, in first-class matches, the lour for pitching and drawiog stumps each day. I would also enact that, to bring matches to a definite conclusion, umpires be empowered to order an extension of time, unless this would prevent either side from getting away for the next match at a reasonable hour. Law 46. It is worth considering whether umpire should not order a bats­ man out, both with and without appeal from the other side. Law 53. Following the innings. Be­ fore 1835 there was no law of this kind. In that year Mr. Kynaston proposed that the side which went in last was to follow its innings, if it was 100 runs or more in the minority. This was changed in 1854 to 80. After certain burlesques in first- class cricket inrecent times, I am tempted to add these words to the present lav/— “ but not if their opponents object.” In our climate a follow-on may be often very desirable ; whenever it is, the leading side ought, if they wish, to avail them­ selves of the chance of doing so. This might, in certain cases, prolong thematch ; but no captain would thus act merely in order to bring about a draw. Law 54. Declaring. Why here insert any reference to “ a one-day” match? put it in its proper place immediately following. In order to prevent draws, I would have this law read thus ; “ on the second day of a match, the in-side shall be empowered to declare the innings at an end.” There, my task is done for the present. Later on I purpose writing out in full this draft of the laws without a word of com­ ment. In this I shall ayail myself of the most generous services of an unknown correspondent in London, who suggests an addition which in his judgment club matches call for. I give it in his words :— Law 8. A. The Service Crease. The Service Crease shall be marked 12 feet from the Popping Crease, and parallel to it and of similar length ; short of which it shall not be lawful for the bowler to pitch the ball. This requires another :— Law 11. A. If the bowler pitch the ball short of the Service Crease, the umpire at the striker’s wicket shall call “ no-ball,” The meeting of the county secretaries has been held, as usual, in Cattle Show week. The fixtures for 1894 do one’s eyes good ; pasted on my study wall, they pleasantly delude one into the belief that the season is close at hand. And “ Wisden ” should be due on Chrisimas morning. So we shall have something to beguile away the long evenings with. It is surely time for the status of all counties to be definitely fixed. I would abolish the so-called “ classes.” Any county, playing three or more first-class counties, becomes itself first-class. And no county, spite of any number of failures, should cease to be first-class, so long as it meets three or more of such counties. It does not matter much how many you include in the list; the more the better, provided in time every county play home-and- home matches with every other county in the same class. Until that is done, the order of merit at the close of the season will not be easily arranged. Thus, Yorkshire and Surrey play all the better “ second ciassers,” and they alone of the nine; then the county championship will have to depend on comparisons which may give rise to much heated newspaper correspondence. The ways and means for enlarging the County fixture list may not be at once forthcoming in the case of certain first- class Counties ; that’s another difficulty. Still not insuperable, seeing that only four Counties are in the running for promo­ tion — Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, and Essex. I would receive them all, and then try and arrange two matches a year between the thirteen Counties. The present state of things calls for reform. It is ludicrous, for instance, that when Chatterton plays for Derbyshire, and scores a hundred against Yorkshire, that does not go to his credit in the first-class averages, though it would if he played for M.C.C. against the same team. So, too, is it anomalous that neither batsman nor bowler in a second- class County receives ary acknowledge­ ment of what either may accomplish when meeting the very strongest of the first-class Counties ; though either of the