Cricket 1895

A u g . 8, 1895. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 323 CRICKET NOTCHES. By t h e Rev. R. S. H o lm es . A couple of cases have been sent to me, or rather brought under my notice, which have been already referred to the M.C.C. Whilst willing enough to abide by the decision of our cricket senate, or rather its secretary, I have been asked whether 1 endorse that decision. In one of the cases I certainly do n ot; the other is an often question. Let me restate them. No. 1. Umpire gives batsman out, against whom none of the fielders have appealed; batsman protests, objects to leave his wicket; but has to go. Had I been his captain I would have insisted on his staying in, or else I would have stopped the match. The latter course, I know, looks childish, but really in such a case I should have no alternative. Kindly notice that this is not a question of fact but of law ; and of a law about which there cannot be any misunderstanding. An umpire may, often does, make mistakes in fact, gives a man in that was out, and the like ; and we can only grin and bear, for his decisions in such cases are, and ought to be final. But an umpire must respect and be ruled by the written code of laws. His busi­ ness is to interpret them impartially, and see that the game is played in accordance with them. But he cannot either create a fresh law or set aside a law already existing. Now seeing that Law 46 expressly exacts that “ they ” — i.e., the umpires—“ shall not order a batsman out unless appealed to by the opposite side,” I maintain that, if they do, either they must revoke their decision or else be requested to abdicate their position. Would that not be the case supposing such a thing had happened at Lord’s P Would the players there have quietly acquiesced ? What when an umpire there gave a batsman out for replacing the bails ? Had not he to eat His words ? An umpire is a man under law, not above it, nor independent of it. Where he breaks a law, whether through wilfulness or ignorance, matters not, he must be forced to abide by the published code. Otherwise what is the good of having laws at all; better at once say that every umpire is at liberty to manufacture his own as cirelinstances may require. I am bound in this case to demur to the decision of the M.C.C. The other case is far less serious. It was sent me by a local cricketer, Case. No. 1 having been brought under my notice at Bradford by my esteemed friend the Rev. F. Marshall, of Rugby football fame. Captains agree to draw stumps at a certain time ; time arrives, when over is incomplete ; should the over be finished ? This seems a trumpery affair, so it is. 1 fear this beastly competi­ tion in modern cricket is responsible for it. Ten years ago one would not have heard of it. And yet theie may be something in it. Let it be granted that a good deal of time is cut to waste in most matches, that many an odd minute might be saved ; that applies equally to both sides. For all that there may be occasions when it is a matter of serious import that “ time be called on the stroke of the clock.” Say that the inside have lost all their wickets save one when the last over begins, and that when the second ball is bowled time is up. They can’t win; but any one of the remaining three or four balls may cost them the match. Well, I think that as captain of the batting side, I should be perfectly willing, as a good sportsman, that the over be finished. But a large number of cricketers are not good sportsmen; they aren’t sportsmen at all. Perhaps, too, the championship of a league hangs on this match! An infinitely momentous matter then this completion of the over. But suppose the second ball of the over proves fatal to batsman, and that he is the ninth man out; andthere isyet a minuteand ahalf totime. Could the umpire in that case order the over to be finished? Certainly not. Then why because the batsmen happen to be in posses­ sion ? There is nothing whatever in the Laws which even hints at the necessity for completing an over. Consequently I hold that a captain is fairly within his rights in withdrawing his men on the stroke of the clock. Though I am bound to add that by so doing he would ever after forfeit my respect as a sincere follower of sport. Turning over an old cricket portfolio last week I came across a capital cricket fixture, Jockeys v. Huntsmen. One never hears of such a match now-a-days. Time was when Jockeys v. Press was an annual, played generally at Lord’s, always well patronized, and provocative of much rollicking fun. Aren’t we getting too serious at our sports. Isn’t cricket degenerating into a business ? One doesn’t want a revival of clown’s cricket: buffoonery ought never to be introduced into sport: but it does us good to unbend a little at times. One never sees to-day any pretty by-play on the part of the stumper even. Tom Emmett was the best of the wags. I often think affectionately of poor Lockyer and his merry ways; he would have been a perfect godsend in these latter days when we are all in such grim earnest. Don’t the gentlemen of the pigskin take to cricket to­ day ? Is life so ponderously serious with them, too ? I wonder how many of my readers have heard of a single-wicket match — played in my youthful days between George Fordham, the jockey, and Jackson, the mammoth bookmaker. It was during some race meeting. The latter was the challenger, and for a fiver a-side. Ford­ ham was not much of a cricketer, nothing like so much at home on this turf as his brother- in-arms, Cannon: whilst the “ booky,” was a cricketer of some pretension. The conditions of the match were that Jackson was to bat with a broomstick. Fordham let his friend C©»stance into the secret, and requested him to be present at the match, telling him of the conditions agreed upon. When CSkstance arrived on the field—a small one, with an orchard behind the bowler’s wicket—Jackson was batting, but with a hedge stake, a couple of feet long and perhaps 2J inches wide. Fordham told him that his opponent would play with nothing else. Well, the batsman got his eye in, and. there was no likelihood of dislodging him. I should have mentioned that it wasarrangedasaone-daymatch. C&stance, seeing that his brother “ jock ” had no chance whatever, begged him to pitch a home toss, and with the result that the ball was quickly banged^out of the field into the orchard. Off ran Ce»stance to find i t ; but it could not be found, so Fordham cried lost ball, and then joined in the search, a group of small boys offering their services. Fordham promised five shillings to the finder of the ball; distance adding, “ make it ten, George, it’s all the same.” Jackson likewise offered a reward, but spite of all the ball was not found. And home they all went. The next morning Jackson obtained anew ball from a neighbouring town, wishing to play the match out. His opponent was not so keen, and refused, as the match was agreed to be begun and completed on the same day. Consequently the wager was off. Need it be said that Cetrstance hadquietly pocketed theball without being noticed, adding when Jackson learned of the trick that had been played on him, “ you took George in by not using a broom­ stick ; you want to know what I did with the ball. You’ll find it where you got the hedge stake; and remember, in future, that two can play at your game.” Pardon this digression, learned and serious reader. It is Bank Holiday, and the demon (in Socrates’ sense, remember) of fun is at my elbow. Yorkshire and Lancashire are going to resume hostilities at Old Trafford. Besides, I can’t help chuckling over last week’s cricket; my forecast was demon­ strably correct. The bowlers still “ have i t ” ; the batsmen’s tails are still between their legs. I must be excused from playing the role of prophet this week. I have not the smallest objection to the only two centuries scored last week, seeing that they came from the bats of men comparatively unknown, one of them indeed making only his second appearance in first-class cricket. But batsmen all round have found their averages shrinking perceptibly, and many an anxious glance will be directed the first thing this morning to the weather glass. It is rising gradually, so the outlook for the holiday folks is promising. The Indian Prince was resting the week through, that is to say, he took part in no match of importance; conse­ quently hestands where he did. Perhapshe was busy in minor matches. Cricketers rarely miss a day’s cricket throughout the season if they are masters of their time. I wish the professionals did, especially if they are played for their bowling. I should like all county committees to insist on this. At present, no sooner is a county match finished than the men are found assisting their local club. They may not live in the place, but they have contracted an agreement to play in club matches whenever they can get off. And the consequence is they get stale through a surfeit of cricket. I know that a cricketer is, and ought to be, anxious to earn an odd sovereign, but would it not pay a county to say to such men : “ Look here, we want you to give us the best of your powers ; whenever we don’t require your services you must take a rest, and we will cheerfully give you whatever sums you might earn in off-matches; you shall not suffer in pocket by so doing.” I am certain many a bowler gets stale through overwork ; a batsman will not so long as the wickets keep soft, perhaps not in the driest summer. But where a county, like Yorkshire, plays a couple of matches every week, none of the eleven ought to take outside engage­ ments. I don’t suppose Surrey would grant their men this indulgence. Hunter’s rest has done him a power of good; not for many weeks has he “ kept” as at Bradford, when Gloucestershire were the visiting team. And an ever welcome eleven they are, spite of the changes which an amateur county seems destined to make match after match. Gloucestershire should hunt up young pro­ fessionals, either in their own borders or else from beyond them. For it cannot be too frequently insisted that in the long run the paid cricketer is the backbone of the game, regrettable as it would be every way were cricket ever to depend exclusively on them. I don’t want them to swamp the game unless one is prepared to allow it to degenerate into a business pure and simple. Cricket is doomed when it ceases to be a sport. It was a dis­ appointing match at Bradford ; for once in a way the best wicket in the country—Brighton is j ust as good—was spoiled by the terrific storms, and in consequence the game was begun and finished in a little more than five hours. The Westerners’ game and successful fight at Trent Bridge just before led us to expect mightier deeds. Everybody was both glad and sorry ^at W . G.’s double failure; he always excites