Cricket 1898

45 4 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. O ct . 27, 1898 QUALIFICATIONS FOR COUNTY CRICKET. LETTER FROM LORD HARRIS. T h e fo llo w in g is a c o p y o f a letter w h ich ha 8 been p o ste d to th e co u n ty crick e t clu b s b y L o r d H a r r is :— To the Committees of County Cricket Clubs. G e n tle m e n , —The subject of the qualifica­ tion of players in county cricket elevens has been exercisingthemindsof countycricketers for some time, and the M.C.C. have been authorisedby the majority of the cricketing counties to appoint a committee for the pur­ pose of considering the amendment of “ The Rules of County Cricket.” To assist any such committee, the M.C.C. recently invited the counties to advise them whether they wished the lules amendedin the direction of a more stringent or a more elastic qualifica­ tion, and the replies on the whole indicate a preference for the former. I venture nowto suggest for the consideration of the com­ mittees of the county clubs the following ideas, whichare the result of my own con­ sideration of the subject (I have not yet laid thembefore the committee of the M.C.C.) k I start fromthe basis that— 1. We ought in no way to hinder, in the first instance, a cricketer good enough for first-class cricket from playing for a county. 2. We should endeavour to discourage, as much as possible, changing from one county to another; and 3. I assume, which I think canbe proven, that it is impossible to prevent such induce­ ments being offered as can, and do, tempt cricketers, both amateurs and professionals, to select counties in which they were not born, and inwhichthey have no such family or residential interest, as was originally in­ tended. By which I mean not only such inducements as enable cricketers to earntheir livelihood, but also the inducement of playing for a first-class county or with personal friends. The latitude nowwinked at is, of course, only as regards the “ residential” qualifica­ tion. I believe most of us think that the present practice is too elastic, and, person­ ally, I go so far as to thinkthatitisunworthy of county cricket. But I am very doubtful whether, without a complete and drastic alteration of the present code, it is possible to securewhat I believewe all really desire, i.e., a system of qualification, personally above board, and of which we can speak openly, andnot inwhispers ; and I venture to submit what I fear may 6eem a startling proposition, that as long as wo retain * ‘ resi­ dence” as a qualifying factor the desired changewill be impossible of attainment. When the county qualification rules were first drafted there was nothing like the present excitement about county cricket; it was often difficult to get amateurs to play for their counties. I preached its merits, as one crying in the wilderness, for several years, and “ residence” was a sufficiently precise term to describe what was meant. Butwe havechangedall that, andI altogether doubt whether now, with this intense com­ petition that exists, it is possible to evolve a definition of “ residence” that would be so clear as to obviate constant references to the M.C.C.—that is, of course, if county com­ mittees mean to be really strict. If they do not, we had better leave things as they are. What is “ residence?” Is it where a man earns his living, orwhere he sleeps? If the former, where he earns his living in the summer, or where he earns it in the winter ? If the latter, how many nights in the year must he sleep there to keep his qualification valid ? Does he break his qualification by leaving England in the winter? There are any quantity of conundrums of a similar charac­ ter, and I doubt the possibility of laying down such a precise definition of “ residence ” as will enable the committee of the M.C.C. to sit in arbitration, and decide satisfactorily either to themselves or others. I submit that, with cricket played as it is, and if the counties really wish the present laxness to be swept away, “ residence ” is an impossible factor, because an inquisitorial watchfulness over each cricketer’s way of spending his time would be necessary, which is absurd. If, then, my argument be sound, some other qualifying factor has to be found, and i circulate this with the hope that the counties will give a fair hearing to the suggestion that “ registration” should be substituted for the “ residential” qualification, and the cricketer be left free to select his county in the first instance. Such a system will not prevent A. or B. or C. being induced to select this, that, or the other county, according as inducements offer, but it will be an open and above-board system, surely more worthy of the game than that at present accepted, under which an amateur qualifies by leaving his portmanteau at a friend’s house, and by paying him 2s. 6d. a week rent, and professionals are qualified by their county paying a rent for a lodging, whether they reside in it or not. Anyhow, I am bold enough to think the suggestion worth discussion, and to assist that I subjoin a draft code with marginal explanations : 1. I hope by M .C.C. 1. A register o f county cricketers shall le estab­ lished and kept up. 2. (a) A cricketer must be registei ed before he can play in county cricket matches. (b) B is name m ust be placed on the register by the county for which he wishes to play. (c) B e c*n play for no other county. 3. W herever born or 3. A cricketer once wherever residing. he is registered for a county is qualified d irec ly his name qualified for that county is on the register, and he for the remainder of h s rem ains so qualified. career unlesi-, as provided for in Jtiule 4, he is per- 1 m itted to transfer his registration t j another county. 4. A cricketer desirous o f transferring his regis­ tration from one county to another m ust obtain the assent of (a) The county for which be is registered. (b) The county to which he wishes to te trans­ ferred 4. (c) Subject, o f course, (c) The comm ittee of to the consent of M .C.C. M .C.C. (w ho w ill satisfy This is to prevent w hat, themselves ihat no valu- I understand, is d- ne by able considtration has football clubs. It deles passed between the res­ not prevent the cricketer pective county clubs) to makiDg a bargain satis- IriD gabout the transfer, factory to him self if the county for which he is re­ gistered does not object to transfer. 5. Or such period as the 5. I f the transfer is per- counties may think advis- m itted, an interval of not able. less than 24 m onths must elapse before he can play fo r the county to which be has been transferred. This suggestion is, of course, in the direc­ tion of greater elasticity in the first instance, but the restrictions against changing from one county to another would, I think, make cricketers very cautious before getting them­ selves registered for a county. The amateur would have to be satisfied that there was some prospect of a secured position in the county eleven for a certain time, and the professional would, as he is perfectly justi­ fied in doing, take care that any contract into which hemay enter is sufficientlyprofitable, whetherhe plays for the county or not. A complication which has to be con­ sidered, andwhich I have not dealt with in the above suggested rules, is as to whether cricketers born out of England should be required toput in a certain term of “ resi­ dence inEngland,” couldbe defined, I think, say, not less than twenty-four months before becomingqualified to select a county, and I amat present disposed to think it would be wise tomake some such provision, in which case it would only be necessary to make the above rules applicable to cricketers born in the British Isles, and to add a rule for those bornout of them. But themost difficult problem appears to me, howto accommodate the “ birth qualifi­ cation” with “ registration,” and I must confess to beingmuchpuzzled. If a “ birth qualification” is to be always valid and no penalty to be attached to transfer from the county of registration to the county of birth, all the risks of temptation, including “ buy­ ing,” remainopen, and that, I fancy, is one of the things the counties desire to check. A solutionwouldbe to attacha less severe penalty in such a case— i.e., an interval of twelvemonths, ascomparedwithtwenty-four, must elapse ‘‘ before he can play for the county to whichhe has beentransferred.” It has beensuggested tome that some pro­ vision shouldbemadeintheeventof acounty unreasonably objecting to a transfer. If the M.C.C. wouldconsent, it might belefttothem by another ruletodecidesuchdisputesfinally. If your committee couldmakeit convenient to authorise your representative at the secre- taiies’ meeting, at Lord’s, in December, to discuss these suggestions, and, if possible, to give a decidedopinion for or against them, I shouldbe greatly obliged, andthough I have no authority to say so, I feel sure the committee of M.C.C. will welcome such assistance.—Yours, etc., HARRIS. Belmont, Faversham, Kent, Oct. 13th. DULWICH CRICKET CLUB. M atches played, 49 ; w on, 19; lost, 16 ; drawn, 14. RE SU LTS O F M ATCH ES. A pril 30—v. Northbrook. Drawn. N orthbrook, 1C9 ; Dulwich, 49 for 7 wickets. A pril 30—v. N orthbrook (2). W on. N orthbrook, 43 ; Dulwich, 130 for 8 wickets. M ay 7— v. Forest H ill. Lost. Forest H ill, 83 and 74 for 8 w ickets; Dulwich, 29. M ay 7— v. Forest H ill (2). Drawn. Forest H ill, f5 for 6 w ickets; Dulw ich, 124 fo r 7 wickets (declared). M ay 7—v. Grecian. W on . 'Grecian, 72; Dulwich, 145. M ay 14—v. Brom ley. W on . Brom ley, 99 ; Dulw ich, 111 for 9 wickets. M ay 14—v. Ibis. W on. Ibis, 64 ; D ulw ich, 162 for 5 wicket* (declared). M ay 14—v. Ibis (2). Lost. Ibis, 71 ; D ulw ich, 68. M ay 21—v. Charlton Park. Abandoned. M ay 21—v. Charlton Park (2). W on . Charlton Park, 52 and 51 for 2 w ickets; Dulw ich, 182 for 4 wickets (declared). M ay 21—v. Thurlow Park. Abandoned. M ay 28—v. Catford. Drawn. Catford, 83 for 6 w ickets; Dulwich. 119. M ay 28—v. Guy’s H ospital. W on. G uy’s Hospital, 68; Dulwich, 183 for 9 w ickets (declared). M ay 30—v. M erton Lost. M erton, 83 and 55 ; Dulwich, 72. May 30—v. Grecian W on . Grecian, 43 and 116 for 6 wickets ; Dulw ich, 162. M ay 31— v. M .C.C. Drawn. M .C.C., 98 for 7 wickets. J u ie 4—v. Ibis. L ost. Ibis, 100; D ulw ich, 54. June 4—v. W alton. W on . alton, 70 and 23 for 3 w ickets; D ulw ich, 139. N E X T ISSUE, THURSDAY , NOVEMBER 24.