Cricket 1894

7G CRICKET* A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME, APRIL 10, 1894 ^ C 0 I ^ E g P 0 P E N C E > THE LVWS OF CRICKET. 168, Fairborouih Road, South Kensington, S.W . April 14th, 1894. Sir,— As collaborates with Rev. R. S. Holmes in drafting the Revised Laws of Cricket, I ask to be allowed a few words in reply to y:>ur correspondent I.A.C. In the first place I am unable to b lieve that I.A.C. has carefully studied the Revised Code, especially the exp’anatory i\marks. It will be difficult, I think, for him to find ther e­ in any foundation for the absurd idea with which he credits Mr. Holmes in the opening paragraph of his letter. If I.A.C. will read a'tentively the short introduction printed at the head of the Code, he will th°re tind, fully set out, the “ idea ” with which the work was undertaken. I.A.C.’s criticisms of the Revised Code are of too loose a character to be of much value, and I propose therefore to notice only one or two of the more salient points raised by him. Laws 18 and 41. No prohibitions have been added to either of these law.*. A s re­ gards Law 18 a few words have been expunged, and the remainder rearranged to make the sense clearer, and the scope a little wider The addition to Law 41 is in accordance with the prac ice iu this co >n'ry, and may be taken to be implied therein. In all other material respects it is unaltered. With regard to L .B .W ., ihe umpire is not asked to do more than at present He is only called upon for hi3 “ opinion ” as to whether the ball would have hit the wicket had it not been stopped by the barm an’s person. The throwing question is too large a one to deal with here. The suggestion of a manual or commentary on the Laws is good so far as it goes. But I 'do not think it would be of much prac'ical benefit, as I doubt if either players or public would tolerate a more or less lengthy t-u-pension of play, while its pag s w?re searched for information as to th-i manner of deciding some kno'ty point. Moreover, the present and the Revised Code constitute the umpires the sole judges in mat ers of this sort. Law 20—In the instance given, I hold that under this Law, and more so under No. 57 in the Revised Code, the wicket was “ down” and the batsman “ out.” The abandoned miscreant was clearly wrong, and no possible revision of the Laws could have prevented him giving a rank decision. Law 11.— Surely a Law is not to be inter­ preted by the size of the type in which it is printed. Law 13 Revised Code is qnite clear as to the question raised here. Law 49.—The question of “ short runs ” is rather puzzling at first, but a little quiet concentration of thought on the matter soon straightens it out. It must first be remem­ bered that a run is made by the two batsmen together, each of whom contributes a half. In the case of a hit for 2, it is only the first which can be short. If both batsmen run short, then it results that each of them have run 2 half runs short, or one whole, total together 2 short runs, and the score is nil therefore. In the case of a 3 hit, by the same reasoning, the score should I think be 1. Law 20— This Law using the plural term undoubtedly implies the singular, on the principle that the greater always contains the less. In the case given the batsman was rightly given “ out.*’ Law 27— I think this Law does imply that a inn may not be made when the ball has been siru -k a second time, and eo apparently does such an authority as Dr. W. G. I re­ member that a few sea-ons back Barnes was given out on theDoctor's appeal,because hav­ ing struck the ball twice he attempted to run. The Revised Code deals with the overthrow questions in Law 53. The panultimate paragraph of I.A C /s letter is, I think, the only really practical part of it. But I do not think umpires are generally called on to decide points of Law It seems to me that their decisions are mainly asked as to facts occurring under their observation. It is, however, much to be desired that umpires should be experience! amateurs, but never I fear destined to be fulfilled. They could not be got to stand. As I.A.C. remarks, it is not possible so to frame Laws, that no one can find a loophole to get through them, or that knotty points shall never cause a tangle. But Mr. Holmes and myself have made an effort to improve the existing code, and remove anomalies and causes of dispute. Doubtless our code is capable of further improvement, and we shall be only too glad to see others coming forward to polish it up.—Yours faithfully, “ How’s T hat .” THE NEW SOUTH WALES TEAM IN NEW ZEALAND. The following are the results of the matches played in New Zealand by the New South Wales team : — Jannary 20, v Auckland.—Won by nine wickets. New S^uth Wales, 185 and 14 for one wicket; Au kland, 93 and 102. Janu >ry 24 and 25, v. Hawke’s Bay.—Won by an innings and 13 runs. Hawke’s Bay, 112 and 5’ ; New South Wa’es, 176. January ‘27 and 29, v. Wellington —Drawn. New South Wales. 209 and 181 for three wickets (innings closed); Wellington, 183 and 44 for no wicket. February 1, 3, and 5, v. Cantsrbury.—Lost by an innings and 7 runs. Canterbury, 311 ; New South Wales, 118 and 103. February 7 and 8, v. South Canterbury Fifteen.— Drawn. South Canterbury, 119 and 83 for twelve wickets ; New South Wales, 222 for eight wickets (innings closed'. February 10 12. and I1*, v. Otago —Drawn. Otago, 2i4 ar.d 114 ; New South Wales, 199 and 75 for five wickets. February 15.1*, and 17 v. New Zealand.—Won by 160 runs. New South Wales, 147 and 208 ; New Zealand, 116 and 79. February 19, 21, and 21, v. North Island.—Won by 123 runs. New South Wales, ‘<20 and 196 ; North Island, 184 and 109. The following were the averages of the New South Wales team. BATTING AVERAGES, Times Most in Inns, not out. Runs, an inns. Aver. J. Gould ... . 13 . .. 1 ... 337 .,.. 105* ... 28.1 J. Searle ......... , 14 ... 6 ... 217 ... 45* ... 27.1 O. Cowley......... 13 . .. 1 ... 277 ..,. 55 ... 231 A. C. M'Kenzie 13 . .. 0 ... 296 ..,. 60 ... 22.10 E. Noble ......... , 12 ... 2 ... 217 ..,. 51 ... 21.7 L. Moore ......... . 13 . .. 1 ... 254 ., 68 ... 2'.2 J. Davis ......... . 11 . .. 3 ... 153 .,,. 25* ... 19.1 S. A. Austin .... 11 . .. 0 ... 169 .,.. 43 ... 15.4 S. B. Walford . 10 . .. 0 ... 126 ... 36 ... 126 A. Noble ........ .. 11 ... 2 ... 97 .... 26 ... 10.7 D. Miller ......... . 11 . .. 2 ... 83 .,.. 18 ... 9.5 S. Hopkinson . 1 ... 0 ... 8 .,.. 8 ... 80 BOWLING AVERAGES. Balls Mdns. Buns Wkts. Aver. S. A. Austin ... ... 1,955 ..,. 93 ..„ 664 ..,. 58 ... 11.26 J. Gould......... ... 907 ..„ 28 ... 427 ... 35 ... 12.7 O. Cowley ... 253 ..,. 16 ..,. 78 ..,. 6 .... 13.0 D. Miller ... 1,429 ..„ 71 ... 493 ..,. 30 .. .. IrtIO A. Noble......... ... 329 ..,. 13 ..,. 158 .. 4 ..,. 39.2 L. Moore ... 66 ... 2 . .. *8 .. 0 ... 0 B. Hopkinson ... 61 ... 6 .. 13 ., .. 0 .,.. 0 Gould bowled two no-ba’ls, Miller four wides and one no-ball, and Cowley one no-ball. OXFORD UNIVERSITY. The following are the Oxford fixtures for this year :— April 3 At Oxford—The Seniors’ Match. May 3.—Vt Oxford-The Freshmen’s Match. May 7.—At Oxford—The University Eleven v. Sixteen Freshmen. May 10— U Oxford—The University Eleven v. Next Sixteen. May 17.—\t Oxford—Perambulators v. Etceteras. May 21.—At Oxford—The University v. Gentle­ men of F.ngla’i'i (VIr. A. J. Webbe’s team'. May 24.—At Oxford—The University v. Somerset­ shire. May 28.—At Oxford—The University v. South African Team. June 4.—At Oxford— The University v. Lan cashire. June 7.—At Oxford—The University v. M.C.C. and Ground. June 21—At Manchester—The University v. Lancashire. June 25.—At Brighton—The University v. Sussex. June 28.—At Lord’s—The University v. M.C.C. and Ground. July 2.—At Lord’s—Oxford v. Cambridge. Ju’y 5.—At Leyton—The University v. Essex. GRANVILLE (LEE) CLUB. April 21—Lee, Captain's XI v. Captain A Team’s XVIII. April 28—Lee, v. S-idcup May 5—Bromley, v. Brom’ey May 5 - Lee, v. Guy’s Hospital 2nd XI. May 9—Croydon, v. Croydon May 12—Lee, v. Charlton Park May 12—Charlton Park, v. Charlton Park May 14—Bickley, v. Bickley Park May 14—Lee, v. Forest Hill May 16—Woolwich, v. Border Regiment May 19—Lee, v. Pliistow May 19—Upminster, v. E. J. Brown’s X[ May 23—Lee, v. Wanderers May 26—Lee, v. Crystal Palace May 26—Lee (Manor Way), v. B1 ckheith Prop. Schoo', Masters’ XI. May 30—Maidenhead, v. The Philbtrds June 2—Lee, v. Eltham June 2—Carahalton, v. Carshilton June 2—Sidcup. v. Sidcup June 6—Forest Hill, v. Forest Hill June 9—Hampstead, v. Hampstead June 9-Lee, v. Croydon June 13—Lea, v. Turn ridge Wells June 16—Lee, v. Whitgift Wanderers June 16—Catford, v. 8t. Dunstan’s College June 19—Lee, v. J. F. Corballis’ XI. June 20—B’ackheath, v. fclackheath June 23—Lee, v. Hampstead June 23—Catford, v. Panther Club June 27—Lee, v. Croydoo June 3'—Lee, v. Hornsey June 30—Croydon, v. Croydon July 2, 3—Lee, v. Panther Club July 5—Lee, v. M.C.C. July 7—Charlton Park, v. Charlton Park July 7—Lee, v. Charlton Park July 11—Tunbridge Wells, v. Tunbridge Wells July 14-Hornsey, v. HornBey July 14—Lee, v. Blackheath Proprietary School July 16, 17—Lee. v. J. F. Corballis’ XI. July 18—Crystal Palace v. Crystal Palace July 21—Eltham. v. Eltham July 21—Lee, v. Naval School July 25—Lee, v. Stoics July 28—Norwood, v. Norwood July 28—Lee, v. Norwood Aug. 1—Beckenham, v. Beckenham Aug. 3-L ee, v. Border Regiment Aug. 4—Lee, v. Blackheath Aug. 4—Sid up, v Sidcup Aug. 6—Lee, v. Bickley Park Aug. 6—Forest Hill, v. Forest Hill Aug. 7—Lee, v. Clapton Aug. 8—Lee, v. Forest Hill Aug. 11—Lee, v. Bromley Aug. 18—Lee, v. Fenchurch Club Aug. 25 - Plaistow. v. Plaistow Aug. 25—Lee, v. Wickham Park F.C. Sept. 1—Norwood, v. Norwood Sept. 1—Lee, v. L »ndon Rifle Brigade Sept. 8—Streatham, v. Streatham Sept. 8—Lee, v. Goldsmiths’ Institute Sept. 15—Lee, Tourists v. Reat T h e A n n u a l T o c r . Aug. 10,11—Saffrons, v. Eastbourne (Saffrons) Aug. 13, i4—Hastings, v. South Saxons Aug. 15 Willingdon, v. Willingdon Aug. 16—Heathfield, v. Heathfield Aug. 17,18—Devonshire Park, v. Devonshire Park