Cricket 1894

“ Together 'joined in cricket’s manly toil. 5 ’— Byron • „ . No. 36 9 VOL. X III. R oistered for T ransm ission A broad THURSDAY, AUG. 2, 1894. PRICE 2d. CR1CKET_N0TCHES. B y t h e R ev . R. S. H o l m e s . A big batch of correspondence, most of which demands public notice, will probably crowd out any lengthy reference to current cricket this week. Here is a curiosity from Mal- too, the birthplace of the great Yorkshire fcowler, George Free­ man : A match was being1 played therj a week or two ago, one batsman had re­ peatedly gone up the pitch and hlogged the bowliDg unmerci­ fully. Bowler, at length, either from nervousness, or regard t ) Jis analysis, bowled a ball which stopped dead about half­ way between wickets. Bats­ man went out to hit it when dead, bowler also chevying ball at same time. Bowler picked )t up before batsman could hit it, threw it at, and knocked down, his wicket; he, being outside the crease, was given out on appeal. I have been ask(d to give my opinion on the whole case. For once, I must beg h ave simply to state certain possible interpretations of the matter. 1. The ball might be s ud to be wide, in that it was out of bitsman’s reach; only, the definition of a wide is clearly limited by Law No. 31. 2. Was it a no-ball ? It cer­ tainly was not what we under­ stand by a fair ball. Only, once more, the Laws— 10 and 11—do not sanction such a ruling. 3. The ball was certainly in play : supposing, then, that bafsman, about to receive ball, deliberately runs up pitch, the bowler might bowl tuch a ball as he could not reach, and yet it be taken by stumper; of course batsman would be out— stumped; might bowler throw at that wicket instead of bowl­ ing, aud supposing he hits it, or stumper then put it down, would not that batsman be out equally with batsman at bowler’s wicket who left his crease before ball was out of bowler's hind? (Law 35). 4. Might not bat«man cla’m that a fielder obstructed him ? If not, what is to prevent stumper or anybody else deliberately prevent­ ing a batsman playing a ball which, in conse­ quence, hit his wi ket? If bowler had not picked up this particular ball, batsman might or might not have struck it. If he missed it, then , and not till then, could bowler or any other fielder pick it up and run him out ? On the whole I should say that umpire’s verdict was wrong; batsman was not out. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I fancy that I should have treated this ball as if it had not baen bowled, that U, I should have ordered bowler to bowl another ball, not penalizing: this in the ordinary way either as a wide or no-ball. But it would be interesting to g e . 1other opinions on this most unusual incident of the game. A question from Belfast— nothing to do with politics, but with the Northern Cricket Union. Batsman, not hearing umpire’s decision (in his favour), left his wicket; another fielder than the man who appealed put wicket down. Umpire said “ Out.” Then ensued much wrangling, batsman would not go out, so match was brought to an untimely end. According to the present laws, the batsman was out, though he would not have I een h id the pavilion or tent been situate behind his wicket, and he might have got as far a* the dressing room of the s line. Personally, I would not in such case3 take a somewhat mean advantage, and conse­ quently would not appeal. The verdict must also be given against a batsman who (to quote from this letter), though given in for an appeal for catch at wicket, then “ lifts his righc foot off the ground to steady himself, and has the bails whipped off.” I was only speaking to E. M. Grace at Leeds on this matter, and some days before receiving tbis communication from Belfast, and I told him that I wanted the ball to be dead whenever umpire had ruled a batsman in. I have long thought that there should not be two appeals from one and the same stroke. He did not agree with me, and one can see such a law must have a margin left round it for special cases. A t Lord’s last year, when Notts were playing Middlesex, Mee was out in a curious way. There was an appeal for leg-before (I think), which was overruled: ball went to point (O’Brien), who, seeing Mee thoughtlessly leave his ground, threw wicket down, and Mee had to retire. But was not the ball really “ dead ? ” Of course, we must abide by the present laws, though I am in hopes that the next revision will effect a change in this particular direction. Another correspjndent bas a Rrievance, which may be thus briefly stated: Can a captain convert an umpire into an active player in order to stave off defeat? Wickets