Cricket 1894

APRIL 26, 1894 UJRICKET j A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME - 83 June *16—O a T, v. Herlfp d*hire .JuDe 2 a—' va', v. Yorkshire June v8ft—O 'a 1, v. Suesex July 5a—Ova), G ntlerr.en v. FI yers Jui> t6—Ova), v. Nortbamptoubhi.e July 12a—Oval, v. Leicester-hire July ICa— Der y, v. L’e byshire July 19a—Leicester v. L icesterthire July 2iJa —Catford Bridge, v. KeLt Ju y i36—Worcebter. v. Worcestershire Jnly26a—0/. 1 v Somerseishire July 30a—Birmingham, v. Warwickshi;e August 16—W»tfoid, v. flertfo dshire August 2a—Oval, North v. South (3. W ood’s Benefit) August 6a - Ova), v. Notts A ugust 86—Dunstable, v. Bedfordshire August 9a—Taunton, v. Somersetshire August 106—Northampton, v. Northamptonshire August 13 /—Cheltenham, v. Gloucestershire Auesui-t 186—Oval, v. Worcestershire Augnst 16a—Ova), v. Lancashire August 176-Manchester, Surrey 2nd XI. v. Lanca­ shire 2nd XI. August 20a—Oval. v. Kent August 53a—Brighton, v. Sussex A u gu st 30a—Leyton, v. Essex a ^hree-day matches. 6 Two-day metches. ^ C 0 1 ^ E g F 0 P E N O E - ! LAWS OF CRICKET. To the Editor o f C bicket . D kak Sik,— Y ou and your readers know that I am a m an with funny ideas. I have read Mr. Holmes’ notes on cricket laws with interest, and I fancy, as regards the laws of cricket, they become “ very harassing legislation ” when interpreted by special plead­ ing, instead of equitably by common sense. You must remember the celebrated speech of Quaker Bright, at Birmingham, in defence of the Gladstone Government, which was charged with passing “ harassing laws’’— “ Of course our Acts of Parliament are harassing legisla­ tion to people who object to progress ; and I have no doubt that when Moses brought down the law from the mount, there were many stout Conservatives present, who thought the Ten Commandments very harassing legisla­ tion.'' I am one of those who think that an honest and chivalrous adaptation of the laws as now existing, is far preferable to meddling with them in any w ay; as, in nine cases out of ten, “ an act to amend an act ” is generally a failure—as I happen to know from forty years’ experience in Parliament, and something is omitted ; and I am one of those “ reprobates,” as some people would call me, who think the world would be much better if the doors of Parliament were nailed up until the year 1900, and the people at large would set to work and try to do their duty to their neigh­ bour a litile more, than ever will be done bj people professing great things and “ voting with their party ” whatever may be their honest feeling. Just so with cricket laws; et us observe them with an ardent love of fair play, as they are. But my object in writing to you is to say a friendiy word to I.A.C., and I will try to take a pull at the milk of human kindness. I think your correspondent is in error on two or three points— 1, The closure was adopted not on account of easy wicket, but to prevent “ roping for a draw” ; 2, As regards “ trial balls ” by bowlers. When the batsmen have knocked the bowlers oft, no law ever existed which allowed the coming bowler to ‘ ‘ get himself into condition.” If a man is a bowler, he ought to be able to start at any m oment; and if he is a duffer who bowls long hops and full pitches at first, he ought to suffer accordingly. The remedy lies with the bats­ man—he has only to say to umpire," Call play -— I am ready — and don’t want to get chilled. If you don’ t c a ll1play ’ I will walk up to the pavilion.” As regards p^ds and gloves for fielding, there was a tradition, but no liw , that a man might wear a left hand glove onlt— I am speaking of 1?35, when I was first “ entered > at cricket. Wick<-t-keepe’ s gloves ar.d pads are quite allowable by general con-e^t, but Wenman use 1 to keep wicketto A. Mynn, Sir Frederick Bathurst, and the other quick bowlers with no protection to han l or legs. Box wore one left hand buck-skin glove, and no man v as safe in drawing his foot when Box or Wenman was behind tbe wicket. I say in fairness that no wicket-keeper has a i igbt to sfop balls intentionally with his pad?, which are part of bis dress, any more than with his cap, and no man should be “ stumped ” off a ball which rebounds from wicket-keeper’s pads uuless the ball is handled by wicket-keeper There are two classes, 1cricketers " and “ cowards.’ ’ As r gards a pad or glove for fielding, I think the tradition in which those of my school were brought up nam ly, “ a cricket ba’l never hurts”— and early training in boyhood of standing long stop with bare hands to quick bowling, were a better safeguard to hands and shin than a substitute for a big heart in the shape of an artificial protection invented in a cricket warebous -. If you got “ a hot on e’’ you remembered how not to get another if possible, and at the worst you “ lubbed it in.” Hand gloves and leg pads for protection of ihe person only arequite right for batsmen. Under t ie old practice in bat ting a man took guard from where the bowler'i hand would be, as nearly as umpire could judge, and I never knew an honest bowler in my life refuse to help the umpire, or at tbe betsman’s request to f s-ist in putting the umpire right. Then the batsman asked if his lej were e’ ear of the inner stump. And he did his best to guard the eight inches of wicke t fa iry with four and a quarter inches of bat, and nothing else. And I hardly ever knew a dispute about lbw. Ba'sman let the bowler see all three stumps, and if, as some did, he elected to stand right in front of his wicket, he accepted the inevitable and went out lbw without asking if bit on the legs. Every honest man knows when he throws. Shabby bowlers take advantage of a weak umpire - remedy for this is, leave them out of the eleven. There is one man who I believe never bowled a ball in his li'e, but his medium throws are so exactly in effect— not delivery— the reproduction of old William Lillywbite, that I hope he will go on for years. He is not a demon who viciously bombards a man on a rough ground. And I always greet him at the beginning of the season with, “ W eill and how is the good old family throw ? ” As regards lbw, no man ever born can measure eight inches of turf to an inch with his eve, and the law never contemplated such an absurdity, since round arm bowling came in When underhand bowling was in and a man was bound to deliver a ball palm upper­ most, with the little finger next the tbigb, a screw was almost impossible, and a ball to take the wicket must, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, have pitched in a line between wicket and wicket. There is no difficulty in calculating the line between bowler’ s band and wicket if a man has eyes and common sense. It was done in England by W.Caldecourt, John Bailey, Tom Barker, Bartholomew Good, and other umpires, whose memories are cherished at Lord's, and is done in Canada, where the chivalrous observance of fair play is beyond praise. I stood umpire several times in Canada, and it is as easy to judge the line j from bowler's hand to wicket last is to judge a ball in catching it. You may weigh cheese or butter by the ounce, but you cannot measure cricket by the inch.—Yours, &e., F.G. P. S. - It is Sunday, and I have been to church. Always learn something, you know, by so doing, as I did to day. An old e ve like a parrot always kept a word or two in front of the parson, and I thought to myself, “ he is taking the ball in front o f the wicket, and it is not fair.” Umpires of England attend— some wicket-keepers do this occa­ sionally— toatch them. To the E ditor o f C rick et, Si-— If “ How’s That’s ” consideration of the laws in general has been as hasty a? in the case of law 20, it is likely to be of very doubtful value. In the case of the bail falling back upon the wicket, he says, off­ hand, that the decision of “ not out” was “ rank.” I thought so too when it happened (in 1874, at Mill Hill School), but during the subsequent twenty years, although inflicting the anecdote on many professional umpires, I have not found a single •ne who would admit the decision to be wrong. So I fancy it may be right after all. 1 he professional opinion was always simply “ The bail was not bowled off.” Box quotes a similar ease, with a similar decision, as occurring during an important match, but does not question its correctness. Nor have I heaid of any batsman having been given out in other similar cases where the bail set'lei back on the top of the stumps. Even the “ revised draft ” would not make it clearly out. So the decision cannot be rank bad. *■How’s That’s ” verdict on the run­ out case, where one bail was off and the bailless stump was knocked out of the ground, is dead against the present wording of the law, although in accordance with older wordirg. Although we agree that “ one fo o t” means “ one or both feet,” it is impossible that the distinct expression “ if both bails be off ” can mean if one or both bails be off.” As in the preceding case, professional (as well as amateur) opinion is against him. Now these points are not in themselves of much value or inter st except as showing, firstly, the very slight value of any individual opinion, however emphatic, and secondly, the hopelessness of trying, by mere wording of a law, to make it incapable of m is­ construction. Buie 20 is apparently as clear as crystal, the junior godfather of a “ revised d ra ft" treats it as perfectly clear, and yet gives, as to its interpretation on two points, a very emphatic opinion which is dead against umpiring ex­ perience. I do not say he is wrong, at any rate in theory, for I think the law ought to allow of his reading being right, but I do not think it doe?. I believe an authoritative opinion on any doubtful point can be obtained from Mr. Per­ kins, the Secretary of the M C.C., and if one man is to give a decision, I do not think any one is in a better position to do so. But I think these opinions or decisions are worthy not only of being published but of being col­ lected, and such a col'ection would be much more useful than any “ revised draft,” which, however interesting as a study, can scarcely be taken very seriously. For which remark I hope to be forgiven, at any rate by cricketers in general, if not by the two godfathers.—■ Yours, etc., I, A. C.