Cricket 1901

F eb . 28, 1901. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 21 H I S T O R Y OF T H E L A W S OF C R IC K E T . B y A lfred D. T aylo r . ( Continued from page 16). 12.—If the bowler shall bowl the ball so high over or so wide of the wicket that, in the opinion of the umpire, it is not within reach of the striker, the umpire shall call “ wide ball.” Oiiginally wide balls went for nothing. During the progress of a single -wicket match at Lord’s, in 1810, we are told that W. Lambert bowled wides with impunity in order to put Loid F. Beauclerk out of temper. A law was passed on M*y 19th, 1828, com­ manding “ wides” to be recorded in the score. The first mention of “ wides ” in the laws of the game appear in those drawn up in the year 1816. Until 1844 a wide resulted in the opponents of the batting side claiming one run, but in that year the M.C C. ruled that wide balls could be run for, and all runs accruing therefrom should be recorded. 13.—Tne b ill shall be bow lei in overs of six: balls from each wicket alternately. When sis balls have been bowled, and the ball is finally settled in the bowler’s or wicket-keeper’s hands, the umpire shall cill “ over.” Neifher a “ no ball ” nor a “ wi le ball ” shall be reckoned as one of the “ over.” In “ Scores and Biographies,” vol. 1, p. xx., we learn that the “ over” originally consisted of six balls. This, however, must be an error, as no mention is made of it in the old laws. Four balls were the number usually sent down until the year 18S9, when the fifth ball was introduced. At the general meeting of the M.C.U., in May, 1900, the “ over” was further increased to six balls. 14.—T.ie bowler shall be alio 7ed to change ends as often as he pleases, pro­ vided only that he does not bow l two overs consecutively in one innings. Until the year 1870 a bowler was only allowed to change ends once in the same innings. A curious case was once down for decision during the old law. A bowler, after delivering one over, changed ends, and com­ menced bowling from the opposite side. After the delivery of a couple of balls he found out that the end from which he was then bowling did not suit him. He thereupon crossed over to his original end. The umpire protested, but the bowler argued that he was entitled to complete his over. In May, 1870, the M.C.C. ruled that a bowler should be permitted to change ends twice in an innings, but should not bowl more than two overs in succession. The present wording of the law was adopted in 1889. 15.— The bowler may require the bats­ man at the wicket from which he is bow ling to stand on that side of it which he may direct. This law has undergone little change. It was framed by our forefathers; and the only alteration is the word “ require” for “ order.” What consequences would arise if the bats­ man flatly refused to obey the bowler’s inj unction it is impossible to conceive. 16.—The striker may hit a “ no ball,” and whatever runs result shall be added to the sco re ; but he shall not be out from a “ no ball ” unless he be run out or break Laws 26, 27, 29, 30. A ll runs made from a “ no b a ll” otherwise than from the bat shall be scored “ no balls,” and if no run be made one run shall be added to that score. From a “ wide b a ll” as many runs as are run shall be added to the score as “ wide balls,” and if no runs be otherwise obtained one run shall be so added. For information respecting the introduc­ tion of “ no balls” and “ wide balls,” see notes appended to Laws 11 and 12. 17 — If the ball, not having been called “ wide ” or “ no ball,” pass the striker without touching his bat or person, and any runs bs obtained, the umpire shall call “ b y e ;” but if the ball touch any part of the striker’s person (hand ex­ cepted) and any run be obtained, the umpire shall call “ leg bye,” such runs to be scored “ byes” and “ leg b yes” respectively. In the very first fully-recorded match, Kent v. England, in 1744, “ byes” are dis­ covered in the score. On May 2nd, 1850, the M.C.C. settled that “ leg byes ” should be marked down as such in the score, so that it could be seen how much in fault the long stop might be. “ Log byes ” were originally scored as “ byes,” as also were “ wides ” and “ no balls.” It is more than curious that although “ byes” are referred to in the earliest of matches, they are not mentioned in the laws of the game until 1884. 18.— At the beginning of the match, and of each innings, the umpire at the bowler’s wicket B hall call “ p la y ; ” from that time no trial ball shall be allowed to any bowler on the ground between the wickets, and when one of the batsmen is out the use of the bat shall not be allowed to any person until the next batsman shall come in. The time limit for each player to take his place at the wicket is two minutes from the dismissal of the previous batsman. This, however, is very frequently exceeded, owing to the lack of authority by our umpires. At one time it was usual for a batsman to receive a trial ball. This practice has, however, long been ignored. This law does not prevent a bowler from delivering a few balls to an imaginary bat held by an imaginary batsman, any more than it prevents a batsman opening his shoulders to an imaginary ball delivered by an imaginary bowler. 19.—A batsman shall be held to be “ out of his ground,” unless his bat in hand, or some part of his person, be grounded within the line of the popping crease. This rule has been maintained since the introduction of the popping crease. 20.—The wicket shall be held to be “ d o w n ” when either of the bails is struck off, or, if both bails be off, when a stump is struck out of the ground. Another law that has not undergone alteration, although a little re-wording would be more than acceptable. From the above it appears clear that a wicket can be put down after it is already down. The S t r ik e r is out — 21.— I f the wicket be bowled down, even if the ball first touch the striker’s bat or p e r s o n B o w l e d . ” Since about 1S35 it has been the custom to insert the name of the bowler against the batsman dismissed, even though the latter be caught out, stumped out, or log before wieket. Originally the fielder or wicket-keeper gained the credit of securing all wickets that were stumped or caught; the bowler’s name being omitted unless the victim was clean bowled. 22.—Or, if the ball, from a stroke of the bat or hand, but not the wrist, be held before it touch the ground, although it be hugged to the body of the catcher:— “ Caught.” Many are the curious ways a batsman has been caught out. As an instance, in the Brighton v. Arundel match, in 1829, Charles Lanaway is recorded to have been caught out by two men, Faulkner and Hooker. Bell's Life says : “ Lanaway had slightly struck a ball that had been bowled to him by W . Broadbridge, which passed rapidly over the stumps and lodged itself high up under the arm of Faulkner, the wicket-keeper. Faulk­ ner was afraid to remove it with the other hand, lest in the attempt it should fall, he therefore called on Hooker, who took the ball from under his arm.” In this case the umpire could not clearly say which man was entitled to the catch; he therefore divided the honour between the two, which decision was officially recorded in the score. 23.—Or, in playing at the ball, pro­ vided it be not touched b y the bat or hand, the striker be out of his ground, and the wicket be put down by the wicket-keeper with the ball or with hand or arm, with the ball in h an d :— “ Stumped.” The first record of a batsman being stumped occurs in the Kent v. England match of 1744. It does not appear again iD the scores of great matches until thirty-four years later. 24.— Or, if with any part of his person he stops the ball, which, in the opinion of the umpire at the bowler’s wicket, shall have been pitched in a straight line from it to the striker’s wicket and would have hit i t :—“ L eg before wicket.” In the early code of rules no mention is made of the above subject. We are told that Tom Taylor and J. Ring were shabby enough to put their leg before the wicket, a fact that caused the rule to be propounded, lt. Robinson is said to have invented pads. On April 16th, 1863, the M.C.C. resolved that the penalty should be paid if, in the opinion of the umpire, “ the ball should hit any part of his person," providing, of course, the leather shall have pitched in a straight line from wicket to wicket. '1his new law was, however, rescinded a fortnight later. At the general meeting of the M.C.C., in 1900, a question was up for consideration as to whether a batsman should not be given out if he was in front of his wicket, between wicket and wicket. The proposition fell through, but on May 1st next the question is to be re-opened. Curious decisions have occasionally been given in this respect. For instance, in 1840, a batsman is recorded to have placed his foot before his wicket, while on another occasion we read that an aspirant to fame was once given out “ body before wicket.” 25.—Or, if in playing at the ball he hit down his wicket with his bat, or any part of his person or dress:— “ H it wicket.” “ Hit wicket ” is not found in the score of any match until 1773, but batsmen, no doubt, paid the penalty long before that year. In the days of chimney-pot hats, it was quite common for a batsman’s head gear to fall on to the wicket when playing the ball. It was the Oxford boys who first played in the low hats, and to this day they are known as the “ Oxford ” or “ bowler” hat. Some curious decisions respecting the hitting of one’s wickct have been recorded. It is not long since that a batsman dropped his spectacles