Cricket 1895

A u g . 22 , 1895. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 3ao CRICKET NOTCHES. By the Rev. R. S. Holmes. Last week brought me letters from all parts of the world—from Grahamstown, >outh Africa, Philadelphia, and Canterbury, New Zealand—besides various other home commu­ nications, to some of which I wish to call attention. 1. My esteemed friend, Claude Leatham, a member of the well-known Yorkshire cricket family, has referred a case to Mr. Perkins and myself: “ Is there any law to prevent a batsman, whilst running between wickets, protecting himself or wicket, by let­ ting the ball when returned by the fielder hit his bat ? ” I am sure that every good bats­ man, in running a short run, takes care to run down that side of the wicket from which he expects the ball to be returned, and it would be monstrous to give him out for obstructing the field if the ball hits him before he reaches his wicket. Now, I would remind cricketers that, for some reason or other which I have never been able to justify, we have two laws bearing on this matter, viz., numbers 26 and 30. Law ‘26 refers to the striker only, and is very explicit: “ The striker is out if, under pretence of running or otherwise, either of the batsmen wilfully pre- veut a ball from being caught; ” that is to say, the innocent may be punished for the guilty. Whilst, according to Law 30, which in very vague, ‘ ‘ either batsman is out, if he wilfully obstruct any fieldsman.” Therefore, combining these two laws, both batsmen may be ruled out at one and the same time for one and the same offence. A manifest absurdity, which I feel certain the framers of these laws never anticipated or intended. In the par­ ticular case mentioned by Mr. Leatham, my ruling would be mo?t emphatic—not out. The same thing is often done, and wilfully too, by our best batsmen, though the umpire cannot say for certain that it is done wilfully. I presume, say, that the bowler is going to shy at the wicket I am making for; I de­ liberately run down the pitch in as direct a line as possible between the bowler andmy wicket. The ball may hit and hurt me; that is my look ou t; I cannot complain, especially if at such a cost I have saved my wicket. Now, suppose the ball to be thrown at an angle which enables me to follow its course, and I see that it will hit some part of my person, am I not justified in covering myself with the bat ? I don’t obstruct the field by so doing, I simply protect myself from a nasty blow. At the same time, if I deliberately extended my bat so as to stop the ball, I have been guilty of a grave offence and should pay the inevitable penalty. I “ mind me ” of being at the Oval in 1867 or 186s when Surrey were playing the Light Blues, Surrey folks will recall this match from the fact that poor Jupp scored a second innings of 134. Well, it was thelast iDnint$s, and anybody’smatch, “ Bos ” Absolom had made a huge drive, and was running the fifth run for it when the ball, being returned, hit him, and, on appeal, the Surrey umpire—there were no neutral umpires in those days—gave him out, and Cambridge lost by 14 or 15 runs. So disgusted were the Cantabs that the following year they refused to meet Surrey. 2. From Grahamstown. “ Does W . G. bowl over arm, round arm, or lobs ? A friend says he has seen him play for years and that since 1§89, W . G. bowled lobs in every mat* h he went on. I have neve*seen him myself.” Well, I have seen W .G . play scores ef times, but the lobs were never forthcoming. This year he did resort to them in one or two matches, notably the Zingari jubilee match. His style was round arm, with a curious hanging action of the right hand, from which the ball seemed to drop. It was different from any other style of bowling I ever saw. The angle of his hand was not altered from the moment he brought it round to the moment the ball left it. Thte back of his hand was always exactly parallel to the plane of the earth, and not inclined to it at an angle such as other bowlers who resort to the off or leg break generally turn their hand. 3. New Zealand. Enclosing a cutting from the Canterbury Times. A portion of this I suppre's, for it weakens the following capital suggestion :—“ Had an offer been made to Australians to provide a comfortable annuity for old Billy Caffyn, it would have met with a hearty and wholesale recognition. Australian cricket owes a lot to Caffyn, who came to the Colonies—one of the most brilliant batsmen in England — with Stephenson’s team in 1863-6». After the tour was over he settled in Sydney as professional coach; and the high position taken by the Australian in the cricket world, and the graceful styles acquired by Murdoch, Charlie Bannerman, and others of Australia’s champions, are undoubtedly due to Caffyn’s coaching. So, too, in a secondary w'ay, are the successes of later generations; and when one man who has done so much for the game of a country is allowed to practically simply exist . . . I would leave it to the good feeling of all Aus’ralians as to which deserves best at their hands. As a colonial myself, I should like to learn of a national Australian movement to secure in his old age the comf rt of one who, I take it, may be considered the founder of Australia’s excellence at cricket.” Well spoken, my good friend. Caffyn I know well in his old age, just as I admired him when in active cricket. Australians will be glad to learn that Suirey are not unmindful of his past services, and have granted him an annuity of some £10 for several years ; at the same time any pecuniaiy help from over the seas would be a graceful and grateful tribute which would refresh the hearts of all good sportsmen over here. One likes to think that in one instance at least a grand old cricketer is not forgotten by one section of the world­ wide cricket community. 4. “ A ba'6man, when running a second run, has one bail blown off by the wind, and before he can get to his crease the bill is returned, and the other bail is knocked off. Umpire gave batsman not out.” Then umpire was wrong, for a stump is required to be struck out of ground only when both bails are off, though the wicket is “ down ” when either of the bails is struck off. But I despair of sound and correct decisions until every umpire, in every description of match, is compelled to give proof of his fi.ness for this r« aponsible post. As long as anybody will do as umpire in small matches’, cricketers must expect ignorant and annoying decisions. 5. Cannot we put a stop to certain tricks often practised ? A Surrey supporter writes to express his indignation at Denton’s conduct in last Monday’s match, when Brockwell bad made a beautiful cut in the direction of the Wrst boundary, “ which the ball tailed to reach by about a yard and a hair. The barman had run four and could easily have managed another for the throw-up, had not Denton deliberately knocked the ball to the boundary when it was lying quite still.” Now I would go bail for Denton’s integrity at any time. And so I concluded that he acted on the impulse of the moiaent, influenced no doubt by what he had previously witnessed in county matches. I have always insisted that, so long as we have boundaries, it is anomalous that a smaller hit may sometimes count more than a boundary. The boundary should certainly fix the limit of runs possible from any hit. In the case just quoted, seeing that the ball had stopped and was then set in motion again, I would have first of all reckoned all that had been run, and I wTould have added four more as an over-throw. For the kick was of tho nature of an overthrow, the ball being dead. Of course there is nothing to prevent a fielder letting the ball finish its course when he sees that if he stops it, the inside will be able to run one more than the boundary wouldyield; although I would infinitely prefer that in this case he picked the ball up and shied her in. , 6. Bad example is contagious, especially when the offender is a man of commanding authority. Can it be true—I quote verbatim — “ that a regular muddle took place yester­ day at Bristol” (Gloucestershire v. Kent)? “ Before the umpires could reach the ground, W . G. Grace, on his own responsibility, decided that cricket could not take place during the day. On the strength of Grace’s word the gates were closed, ana the telegraph clerks, the members of the press, and the attendants departed. Subsequently the sun came out, and it was arranged to commence at four o’clock. The Kent professionals, however, could not be found.” I sincerely hope this is not an accurate statement of fact; ju 't as I hoped the other day that my lady correspondent erred in stating that W. G. accompanied the umpires when they w'ent out to examine the ticket at Old Tratfoid, for the instructions to umpires, recently issued by the M.C.C.. expressly for­ bid ihe umpires to be attended by »ny of the players when they undertake this duty, -ricketers one and all, do let us mind our own business. 7. It is to be hoped that the Australian trip will not fall through. Uranted that the .M.C.C. possess not the same power as th> governing bodies in both branche* of football, is it not incontestably true that the M.C.C. ;«re the representatives of every section of English cricket? They are our 1iw makers, and on all side issues cricketers loyally accept their decisions. I wrant no monopoly in sport, rertainly not in cricket, but which of us would raise the smallest objection to the issuing of a formal invitation to the combined authorities of Australia, on the p.rt of the M.C.C.. in the name of the cricketers of Englmd? Once more I repeat my personal regret that, in co-operation with ti.e County Executives, the M.C.C. have not been able to undertake the entire financial responsibility of this projected visit It would ^i've it a standing which all previous tours have lacked, and would save it from degenerating into a wretched commercial venture. Last week’ s cricket made many of us rub our eyes, and occasioned much htart burning in Me ropolitan crirket circles. Surrey thrashed twice in a week. What does it all mean? I have been favoured with three letters from rabid Surreyites. winch 1 shall not reproduce. Time will doubtless piove the best healer of wounded spi'iis. Th re is no etrthly reason-to conclude lhat Surre> aie on the down grade. The same thing h-ppened in 1831, if my memory is hot playing me false, when Somersetshire and Middlesex, in successive matches, made Surrey sing small. And yet they were top that y ar. The ghastly wickets have levelled all batsmen. With a delightful change iu the weather* Surrey may quickly recover lost ground although I should not be overwhelmed witk