Cricket 1900

452 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. Nov. 29, 1900. BOW LING AVERAGES. Ba'ls. Runs. Mdns. W kts. Avg. H. Trumble .. ... 1636 ..,. 484 .. . 106 ... 51 .. . 949 H. Graham ... ... 114 ... 80 .. . 0 .. . 6 .. . 1333 Cave . ........... ... 2014 .... 704 ..„ 115 .. 50 .. 140S F r y ................... ... 1090 .. . 496 .. . 41 .. . 29 .. . 17-10 D. Mailer ... 156 ..,. 72 .. . 6 .. 3 ... 24 W . Bruce ... 900 .. . 371 ..,. 42 .. . 12 .. . 30-91 Cver ........... ... 691 .. 344 .. 19 .. 11 . . 31-27 A . A . Lucas ... ... 854 .... £62 .... 34 .... 9 ... 40-22 G regory........... ... 202 ... 114 . 6 ... 2 ... 67 Cave bowled 11 no-balls ; A . A . Lucas bowled two wides; Fry bowled one n o-tall; Over bowled two wides ; W . Bruce bowled 15 wides ; Gregory bowled one no-ball and two wides; H. Trumble bowled one no-ball. Seventeen other members bowled in less than three innings. __________________________ ©omsfpon&ence. The Editordoes not holdhimself responsible lor the opinions of hiscorrespondents. CRICKET UMPIRES. To the Editor of C r ic k e t. S i r , —Now that the hurly burly of the season is oyer, cricketers have time to devote some of their thoughts to matters connected with the game that most urgently call for reform. And one of the chief of these—as has been pointed out in Cricket almost from the first number—is the question of umpiring. For it cannot be denied that although the umpiring in first-class cricket is far better now than it was some few years ago, it still leaves great room for improvement. Then, again, there is the question of umpires’ responsibilities, and the necessity for defining more par­ ticularly than has yet been done the extent of their authority. Are they to over-ride altogether, as happened more than once during the past season, the opinions and the wishes of the captains of the opposing teams ? For it would appear that they have the power to do so under, the present laws. Law 43 says that the umpires shall be “ the sole judges of the fitness of the ground, the weather, and the light for play.” Does not this law in these days require some modification? For, surely, it could never have been in contemplation that when the respective captains of two opposing county teams consider the state of the wicket fit for cricket, and wish to play, that the umpire should be in a position to over-rule them, and keep fieldsmen and batsmen idle in the pavilion ? After all, worthy men though the county umpires as a body are, they are but human, and as we know, in their feelings and prejudices they too often sympathise with the professionals, who, in many cases—I do not say invariably—prefer a day off in the pavilion to playing the match out under unpleasant conditions. Another matter that seems to call for reform, as the laws are at present, is that the duty of interpreting their exact meaning falls upon umpires. It could not have been intended originally, that the laws should be interpreted, as well as administered, by the umpires ? But take a case in point. In the match at Leyton between Essex and Derbyshire, the captain of the latter side, on the third day of the match, desired to give Essex all the available time left to bat in. And he accordingly (directly the Essex first innings had been concluded), wished to put them in again, with but the ordinary ten minutes interval between the two innings. In other words the Derbyshire captain relinquished his second innings in its entirety ab initio ; as I contend he had a perfect right to do, and as the Bpirit of the law clearly intended he might. But the umpires, one of whom was no less aij authority than Alfred Shaw—and if he made a mistake, how much more liable are many of his less gifted fellows to err in their reading of the meaning of the laws— ruled against such a course. In effect they argued that the law meant that an innings had to be begun by an over being bowled, and that until this had been done it had no legal existence, and could not be ended. So the absurdity was gone through of the Essex team going into the field and an over being sent down, and at least a quarter of an hour of precious time absolutely wasted, just to comply —pace the umpires—with the letter of the law. The incident shows either that the law requires alteration, or that umpires require better instruction as to its meaning and intention. Yet another matter in which the duties of umpires need defining is as to their rights and duties inter se. Another incident of the past county season will serve best to illustrate the present anomaly. Umpire Phillips “ called” Tyler, the Somersetshire bowler, for throwing. He exercised his right from his position at short leg. Umpire Walter Wright, officiating at the bowler’s end, disagreed, and did all in his power to nullity his confrere’s action by reckoning the “ no-ball ” in the over. And this disagreement between the umpires not unnaturally, perhaps, led to the question being asked “ why, in the matter of a ‘ no-ball ’ should not the accepted law be followed, which lays it down that “ when the umpires disagree, the existing or actual state of things shall continue.” Which, of course, appears specious enough, but if carried into effect might altogether nullify the new law by which the umpire at short leg may “ call ” a bowler whose action he is dissatisfied with. Does not the remedy for these and other anomalies lie in the social status of umpires being improved, as Cricket has urged any time these last twenty years, or so ? There is no reason at all why the umpires who stand in important matches should not be as far removed from any suspicion of favouritism or incompetency, so far as their position in life is concerned, as the members of the M.C.C. Committee themselves. The present system of appointing umpires from the ranks of retired players has naturally much to recommend it. In a way, of course, it is a form of pension. But it has too many disadvantages. Almost as well might the Jockey Club appoint racecourse officials from the ranks of superannuated jockeys; or might our bench of judges be filled up by the Lord Chancellor extending his patronage to members of the legal profession whose increasing years and other disabilities had unfitted them for the practice of advocacy. Cricket in these latter days is a sport which can afford to be served by the best. And what is wanted is a body of well- paid men, whose social position gives them a standing that the present umpires do not possess. It has often of late years been made a reproach against cricket that the best of all our great national games has brought inito existence a race of players known as “ promateurs.” And, unfortunately, in some few cases, the position of certain leading non-pro­ fessional cricketers has not been altogether satisfactory. If something in the way of a college for umpires, how­ ever, were instituted, as it might be, much of this would be done away with, and an opening might be found in the “ profession ” of cricket for both amateurs and players alike. So a public school or ’varsity captain would be able to adopt cricket as a profession without any misgiving as to his exact status, and in course of time the position of a certificated umpire would be generally recognised as much as that of a school­ master, a lawyer, a stockbroker, or a chartered accountant. This, of course, as a mere subsidiary gain. The main advantage to be derived, by handing over the umpiring in our principal matches to well-paid officials, would be the benefit the game would reap by the creation of an expert body, which should be as infallible as fallible mortals can be. Yours faithfully, “ KING WILLOW .” P.S.—I have not touched on the pro­ posal to give umpires still further im­ portance by making them allot points in the case of drawn games. For I fancy that there is practically unanimity in the cricket world as to that. If, however, a Committee—consisting, say, of Mr. Y. E. Walker, the Editor of Cricket, and Bob Thoms—sat every week to decide on the points to be allowed for drawn games, I think Mr. W. E. Denison’s scheme might be well worth experimenting on for a season or two.— “ K .W .” THE WICKET-KEEPING OF 1900. To the Editor of C r ic k e t. D ear S ir ,— I enclose a list o f w icket- keeping fo r the Season 1900, som ething sim ilar to others w h ich I have seen in Cricket. Believe me, Yours, “ LUDI AMATOR.” %Pi ■4-S P 3 8 l b9 oj i .s H unter........... 0Q A oE h > £ 31 .. 46 ... 77 .,.. 276 ... 9 20 .. 87*89 Butt ........... 11 ,. 56 ..,. 67 .. . 302 ,...10-79 .,.. 76 21 Board .......... 9 ... 59 ... 68 . 340 ...12 14 ... 75-86 Stedman 7 .. 57 .. 64 .,.. 294 ...11-77 .. 72-23 Smith ........... 18 .. . 37 .. . 55 .. . 151 .,.. 7 55 .. . 67-45 Lilley ........... 7 .,.. 46 ... 53 ... 210 ... 8 79 .. 64-21 Carlin ........... 12 .,.. 35 .,.. 47 ... 195 ... 9 75 ... 57-25 Huish ........... 13 .. 34 . .. 47 .... 266 ...12 09 .... 54 91 Russell........... 9 .. . 29 ,. 38 ... 276 ,... 9>6 ..,. 4814 Straw ........... 2 ... 31 ... 33 .. 194 ...10-21 .... 42*79 Whiteside ... 7 ... 24 .,.. 31 .... 20 1 ... 9 62 41-38 Storer ........... 2 ..,. 26 ..,. 28 .. 207 ... 9 86 . . 38-14 Newton, A . E. 7 ... 17 ... 24 .. 127 ...12 70 ... 31-30 Robson, C. ... 5 .. . 16 .. . 21 .. . 206 ,. 11-44 .. 29 56 Martyn, H. .. MacGregor,G. 9 .,. 12 ... 21 ... 93 ...11*63 .. 29 37 5 ..,. 16 . .. 21 . 186 .14-31 .,,. 26*69