Cricket 1895

66 CRICKET ■ A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r il 18, 1895. CRICKET NOTCHES. B y the R e v . li. S. H olm es . Easter Monday at last, and a couple of Colts’ matches: with what tangible results to their respective counties it would be rash to predict. Gloucestershire cricket does not seem to have benefitted to any perceptible extent by the annual trotting out of their youngsters ; but to Notting­ hamshire this time-honored Eastertide fixture has often proved a gold-mine. It i< time they struck on another rich vein. Trade has been none too brisk in the midland county of recent years. And there is a stir of cricket up and down the land, and not a few club matches have already been played. The first reported match that has come under my notice is somewhat of a curiosity. It was not exactly first class, as the names of the contesting clubs will show—Leeds Hairdressers v. Mr. J. T. Penrose’s team— twelve aside. But the barbers engaged the services of a grand old bowler, almost as good as any yet in the county of broad acres—the ex-county player Peate. He took the whole of the eleven wickets, at what cost was not stated, but as the total from the bat was only fifty, twenty, I should say, would be a fairly-accurate guess. I have occasionally seen Peate bowl during the past five years, and have heard more of his doings, and one cannot but regret his early retirement from front- rank cricket. A thousand pities both for himself and for cricket. By his bowling alone he has recently changed a third- class club into a first-class. But I am not to sing in the minor to­ day, nor am I going to prospect as far as the cricket of 1895 is concerned. We must wait three weeks before the county ball is fairly started. The publication of the list of county umpires for the coming season gives me a text for a homily on U m p ir e s a n d U m p i r i n g . 1 have no funny stories to relate— everybody knows them all by this time— though I did see one somewhere in con­ nection with the English team now tour­ ing in the West Indies. After one of their matches, which the visitors won, they shouldered the umpire to the pavilion, and then made him a present of ten pounds. One would dearly like to learn the meaning of this unique gene­ rosity. Umpires generally get more kicks than sovereigns. For instance, the appointment of um­ pires was discussed by the county secre­ taries in December last, it having been freely mentioned that umpiring had oc­ casioned much dissatisfaction for two or three seasons; and it was suggested that an increase of the first-class umpires’ fee might bring about a happier state of things. Well, an advance of a sovereign per match has just been agreed on. Quite right, you cannot remunerate such hard- worked men too liberally. And, following this, there appears a list of the connty umpires for 1895. I have no adverse criticism to pass upon it. Ulyett’s name is a welcome addition. Are we to conclude that the relegation of certain names to the reserve list is a mark of dissatisfaction on the part of the county captains ? From the discussion in December one would conclude that there was an indefinite number of competent umpires in every county, and that the difficulty was to decide which was best out of so large a selection. I know Lancashire and York­ shire fairly well, and see a lot of cricket outside county engagements. After these matches the next in importance are possibly the so-called League matches. I watch at least one a week throughout the season, and I am compelled to say that if the umpiring in those matches is the second-best the counties can produce, there is not much room for boasting. It is not their untrustworthiness I complain of—they never stand in a match where their club is playing—but their dense ignorance of the laws of cricket. Mistakes everybody makes, and decisions of abso­ lute fairness are certain to cause heart­ burning. No umpire can be omniscient. As Sam Weller remarked, “ My wision’s limited.” I cannot see how an umpire can possibly watch the bowler’s delivery and his feet at one and the same moment; and it’s not within the power of the keenest sight to see the play of a bowler’s elbow should he happen to bowl round the wicket. Besides, how can we expect him to exercise his judgment at all on the matter of fair and unfair delivery ? Persons have complained to me that professional umpires won’t no-ball a brother pro­ fessional. Why should they so long as the law gives them no practical help. Tell them in plain terms what a throw is, and you may then look for solid results. I wonder whether all readers of this column have seen an article in this year’s “ Wisden,” entitled “ Throwing in First- class Cricket.” It contains answers from a number of first-class cricketers to this question—“ Do you think there was much throwing in first-class cricket this year ?” A delightfully ingenious question. But ought it not to have been prefaced by a more practical question—“ What, in your judgment, constitutes the difference between bowling and throwing j1” My reason for this suggestion is furnished by the article just referred t o ; it’s the fun­ niest piece of literature I have seen for a long time. All sorts of answers are given, so contradictory at times as to remind one of the story of the two knights quarrelling about the color of the shield that separated them; only, that in the case of the shield, one side was black, the other white. But there is no such vital difference in the matter under discusssion in “ Wisden ” ; there, a number of com­ petent men are watching the same piece of workmanship under precisely similar conditions of time and space. And yet this is the startling result. I select two extreme opinions. My friend Richard Daft says : “ I saw most of the first-class bowlers last season, and, although occa­ sionally there might be a ball that was the least bit suspicious, upon the whole I could not, if I had been umpire, had no-balled it. I do not think there is anything to complain of regarding our first-class bowlers.” Now hear L. C. H. Palairet: “ I certainly think there was a great deal of throwing in first-class cricket last season, and that it is yearly becoming more common and more thinly veiled.” Now, which is right ? I suppress my own opinion. Both of these authorities cannot be correct. If one is right, the other must be wrong. I have been thinking after this fashion: Supposing Daft and Palairet had officiated as umpires, and in the same matches— matches where the offending bowlers were playing. The former would pass the very balls the latter would penalize. Where should we be then ? And all because we have never yet had an accurate and official declaration or definition of a “ throw.” The Laws can never be complete until that omission is supplied. But further, I must get face to face with the umpires—umpires in all sorts of matches. Their’s is a work of very delicate difficulty. They cannot please everybody. After some experience in the white coat, I am amazed that on the whole they do their work so well. Occasionally, I thought they made mis­ takes, but then, that was only one man’s opinion against another’s, and as they are in a better position for judging than any spectator, I have nearly always given them the benefit of a doubt, even when it has counted against myself. As they are only human, and can appreciate brilliant batting, I should never have bullied them if they did err in giving a decision averse to a pokey stone-wall batsman; though I would not declare any umpire ever did when I was present. Still, for all my sympathy with umpires, and a chivalrous support of their judg­ ments, I have long been of opinion that they should be able to furnish a satis­ factory qualification for such a position. It is not to the point to urge that a candidate for that post is a sterling cricketer of long and varied experience either as bowler or batter. Nor is the matter much advanced by informing us that he bears a character without a crease in it. An umpire should possess these qualifications at any rate, but he must have more. He has to decide on matters where sound eyesight is indispensable. If his sight be failing, as is the case with most retired cricketers, he must make mistakes. My first test would be therefore AN EXAM INATION IN EYESIGHT, and by a well-known oculist. More than this, an umpire’s duties are the interpretation of the Laws of Cricket. Now, before he can interpret them, he must know them, know all about them, know them by heart. Here comes in my second test, AN EXAM INATION IN TH E LAW S. And I would raise the standard according to the quality of the matches in which he is to stand; and then he should receive a certificate testifying to the class he has passed in. But, some one asks, who shall be the Board of Examiners ? For first-class matches, the M.C.C., without doubt, ora committee selected by them. In club cricket, the clubs interested in a series of matches might undertake the responsi­ bility. I see that some small Yorkshire