Cricket 1894

APRIL 12, 1894 OBICKETs A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE ftAME, 51 '£ C 0 I^ E g P 0 ,N D E ]^ C E i> T he L aws op C kicket , To the Editor o f C b ic k e t . S ir .—Some of Mr. Holmes’ s suggested alterations affecting the actual play, appear to be framed with the idea of guarding the batsman from likelihood of getting out, by handicapping the outfields. In view of the acknowledged fact that the lawn-mower has made the pitch into such a blissful paradise for batsmen that it has been found necessary to make a law allowing a side to dispense with superfluous batsmen, these suggestions appear to be not only vexatious and unfair in themselves, but also a strategical blunder. Above all, the prohibitions added to Laws 18 and 41 seem particularly objectionable. First as regards so-called trial balls, at present bowled to an imaginary batsman holding an imaginary bat. These are an absolute necessity to a round-arm or over­ hand bowler, and are simply equivalent to the privilege, nowheie denied although not expres ly granted, to the batsman to open his shoulders by playing imaginary balls from an imaginary bowler. There is really no waste of time, but the reverse. If the privilege were denied, it must in many cases mean that the first two or three balls from a new bowler will be long hops or fall pitches. Every cricketer knows what that means when only a few rung are needed to win a close match. As regards fieldsmen wearing pads and gloves, I believe Mr. Holmes regards this as “ unsportsmanlike.” Now that term really means “ mean or unfair.” I am at a loss to understand why a much needed protection should be so considered. Pads are certainly an encumbrance, but anyone who has fielded at mid-off or point on a rugged field while good hitters were making hay of the bowling on a good pitch will agree tnat, in the interests of humanity, shinguards should be allowed. Legislators may think only of the perfect outfielding on county grounds, but for law-making purposes county grounds sho.uld not be considered. On nine grounds out of ten the outfield is poor, but even on perfect grounds we have often noted the sickening thud with which the ball struck the shin-bones of the plucky duffer who is so often eleventh man. The best of fielders may misfield a half-volley which, instead of bounding, “ skids’’ low and cuts open his shin—ptrhaps the most dangerous place for an open wound. If it be objected that shin­ guards will cause the fielding to deteriorate, we need only look at wicket-keepers and batsmen to be convinced to the contrary. A feeling of security will positively cause brilliancy. Concerning gloves, it seems to me that every bowler ought to wear a glove on the left hand. How often he has to take balls whizzed in from cover or mid-wicket by a loose- jointed thrower who dashes in the ball as if the bowler’s death secured instant victory to bis side. The bowling hand may not be affected, but the bowler's temper and courage must be. He cannot possibly wear two gloves, like the wicket-keeper, although he is doing the same work, hut he at least ought to wear one. As far as fielding is concerned, why should everything be made easy for the batsman and hard for the fielders ? It is not right to say that the American custom is an abuse. It may produce a slight advan­ tage ; let us hope it w ill; it may render a larger wicket necessary. There seems no chance of the law on leg- before-wicket being materially altered. Such a change would imply a degree of judgment which would be a'most superhuman. The umpire’s “ personal equation ” is too uncer­ tain even now, when a ball must pitch between wicket and wicket to obtain a ver­ dict. What would it become if the umpire were made to “ guess ” instead of “ see ? ” For while most umpires try to be fair, it is sometimes a very hard struggle. Do not therefore ask them to decide that a ball, not pitched straight, would nevertheless have hit the wicket. What price a fast bowler on the leg side ? Mr. Holmes bravely i ushes into the breach with a definition of a throw. His definition is not one at a'l likely to assist an umpire, nor do I think it even correct I fancy it would cover several cases of fair delivery, while some unfair ones would f scape. More­ over, a definition limits the application of a term. It does not necessarily explain it. In this case no limitation is needed. There has been no complaint of fair bowlers being no-balled; the reverse is the ease. And a definition must still further hamper the umpire. He will naturally say, “ How can I tell whether his arm straightens, or stiffens ? ” especially if a loose sleeve be worn. The bowler himself is not conscious of such points. And it may be mentioned thit there are throwers who honestly believe that they bowl. I believe this throwing definition is ground that angels fear to tread, but I venture to call attention to the fact that in fair bowling, whether under-hand, round-arm, or over­ hand, the effective action is that of pulling the ball to the line of the shoulders, w here it attains its maximum speed. A bowler may still hold and impart speed to the ball after it has passed the vertical line through the shoulder, but in this case he turns his body to the left (if he bowl right-handed), so as to shift the line of his shoulders forward. By the line of the shoulders I mean a line (or more properly a plane) passing through both shoulders and the back. Now in all throw­ ing the maximum speed is always imparted after the hand has passed the line of the shoulders, and the action is then essentially tbat of a push. This is irrespective of any question of straight arm, stiff arm, or any other condition or position of the arm. The muscles used in pulling and in pushing are quite different, and an umpire may easily note a diflerent action without in the least degree understanding what the difference is, or the reason for it. It doe3 not seem wise to say “ fairlybowl.” This implies that throwing and jerking are bowli' g, but unfair. If my explanation be correct, throwing is radically different from bowling. It is a common thing to “ throw an arm out.” It is impossible to “ bowl an arm out.” It is no mere question of stiff­ ness, or of straightening, or of wrist-move- ment. The difference starts at the shoulder socket. Would it be possible for a committee of experienced amateurs to compile a small manual or commentary on the laws, with examples and decisions on difficult cases or points not clearly set out in the laws ? If the M.C.C. would supervise and approve the manual it would be valuable; if not it would be wtll nigh worthless. The laws should be short, but authoritative explanations of the laws can scarcely be too full. The number of doubtful cases is immense. For instance, take law 20. I once saw the wicket struck, the bail flew up in the air, fell, and stopped in its old place on the stumps, but reversed, that is t say with the longer projection on the middle stump. An abandoned misjreant decided “ n otou t.” W hy? The reversal of the bail proved its removal. The bail actually had to be taken off and put into its proper position before the next ball was bowled. While if the wicket-keeper had caught the flying bail, it must have been out. Yet there was the wicket with two bails on. Law 11 siys the bo*ler must have one foot behind the bowling crease and within the return crease. I have known an umpire decide that the law limited this position to one foot. Print the whole law in small type and he appears to have given a foolish decision. But print the word ONE in capitals and his decision would appeal’ absolutely correct. Which is “ funny, without being vulgar.” Law 32 says “ the striker being caught no run fhall be scored.” Presumably this means “ caught out,” otherwise no run could be scored from a no-ba'l struck into a long- field's hands. Or a quick-footed point might run after the striker and catch him by the collar. (N.B.— This is a goakl. Law 24.— “ Thomsonby” quotes a case where a batter stopped a straight ball with his leg, but, as he had his bat between the leg and the wicket, the umpire decided that the ball would have hit not the wicket but the bat, and gave him “ not out.” gjThe decision is perfectly logical, but it is doubtful if it was right. Law 27. The Hon. R. H. Lyttelton writes:— “ It may save a few seconds of time if the batsman shove the ball back to the bowler with his bat.” It may, but it may save the batsman the trouble of going on with his innings, for the law expressly bars the second stroke “ except for the purpose of guarding his wicket.” In ease of an appeal, few would sympathize with the appealer, but could the umpire be blamed for saying “ out ? ” Law 49, as to short run?, gives rise, to a curious case, I have known both batsmen run short when running a two. Presumably only the first run was short, as the law states “ the run,” implying the run which was not properly completed. In this particular case each umpire of course called “ one short,” and no run was scored, although the propriety of this is open to question. What if the double short run occurs when running a three ? Law 20. A case happened last year where a bail dropped oil while the batsmen were running; the ball was thrown at tbe wicket and the bailless stump was struck out of the ground. The batsman was out of his ground, and was given out, a wrong decision accord­ ing to the law. But should the law handicap the fielders to this extent ? Turning again to Law 27. Supposing the batsman strikes the ball a second time for the purp: se of guarding his wicket, the law does not say, nor doe3 it npparently imply, that no run may be made oil that ball Suppose a fielder picks up a ball, shies at the wicket, and sends the ball to the boundary, surely the usual number of runs should be scored for the overthrow. And if four may be scored, why may not any be run ? I believe tbat subtle tactician, T. C. 0 ’Brien, has been known to tempt a batsman to run in such a case by wilfully misfielding the ball; simple comedy, no doubt, but what would have happened if the batsman had tried a run ? The same thoughtful fieldsman is said to have saved himself a hard throw, and also a possible five to the enemy, by deliberately assisting the ball to the boundary. This actit n