Cricket 1902

A ug . 14, 1902. CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 347 the Rev. A. H. J. Cochrane, the old Oxford University Blue. Mr. Cochrane played against Cambridge in 1885, ’86 and ’88, and was one of the best bowlers of his time. In the 1888 match he took six wickets in the first innings for 62 and three in the second for 43. In 1886 he also played for the Gentlemen against the Players at Lords. M r . H. W. F o r s t e r , M .P ., the old Hampshire cricketer and Oxford Blue, has been made a Lord of the Treasury. He played for the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord’s in 1887, scoring 12 not out and 0. For Oxford he played against Cambridge in 1887, scoring 60 not out; in 1888, scoring 1; and in 1889, scoring 14 and 10. His highest innings for Hampshire was 71 against Sussex at Brighton in 1892. W e have been asked to insert the following letter:— B y the generosity of the publishers, Messrs. Constable, I am able to trespass on your space for the purpose o f announcing that all profits arising from the sale of any copies of m y book, “ Cricket Form at a G lance,” from to-day until the date of the closing of the Cricketers’ N ational W ar Fund, will be handed over to that splendid fund, and the amount will appear on the Sportsman list. Thus cricketers, while giving a modest contribution, w ill obtain a souvenir of their benevolence. H is M ajesty the K in g has been graciously pleased to accept a cqpy of the work, an honour which Lord K nollys has intimated, and m ay serve to commend the work for its new charitable purpose to those w ho do not care for statistics. Yours, etc., H om e G o r d o n . A CO RRESPO N DEN T, “ X . Y. Z.,” w r ittS to show that still another cricketer besides Dr. Grace, Victor Trumper, and A. C. Maclaren has played two separate innings of a hundred in a first-class match, and has also made a seore of three hundred. He says: “ Will you allow me to correct an error in ‘ *Pavilion Gossip ” of “ C r i c k e t ” a fortnight since? You state that Dr. W. G. Grace and Victor Trumper alone have made two centuries in one first-class match and also hit an innings of 300 in first-class cricket. Besides Mr. A. C. Maclaren, mentioned by Mr. Mazetti, Major B. M. Poore hit 304 against Somerset on July 24, 1899, at Taunton, also 104 and 119 not out against the same county at Southampton on June 15, 16, and 17, 1899.” Are there any more of them ? T h e r e was no play last Thursday in four out of the eight first class matches, viz.: Worcestershire v. Derbyshire, Leicestershire v. Yorkshire, Warwickshire v. Lancashire, and Essex v. Notts. On Friday there was again no play in the first three of these matches, and on Saturday the Leicestershire v. Yorkshire match was abandoned without a baM being bowled. F r o m a Parish Magazine:—“ Wanted, two bowlers, a wicket-keeper and seven catchers. Apply, the Secretary of the Cricket Club.” From this, Mr. Sherlock Holmes would doubtless conclude that the secretary was not a bowler nor a wicket-keeper. T h e match in the Minor Counties competition betweenWiltshire and Devon­ shire was begun and finished on the same day, the rime being prolonged a little as there was not the slightest chance that Devonshire would get themselves out of the hole in which they were placed. A KNOTTY POINT. A letter has been forwarded to the Committee of the Marylebone Cricket Club, England, by Mr. F. J. Ironside, for consideration. The letter is addressed to Mr. F. E. Lacey, Secretary Maryle­ bone Cricket Club, and is as follows:— Sydney, N .S .W ., June 30, 1902. ; Sir,— Considerable difference of opinion existing amongst m any of our cricket author­ ities in the Australian States as to what con­ stitutes a “ stump o u t” and what a “ run out,” and as to interpretation o f same given in a brochure issued, I understand, b y the Marylebone Cricket Club, I would respect­ fu lly ask you to submit for consideration by the committee of the M .C . Club at its next m eeting the query raised b y me as follo w s:— “ A ball rebounding from the w icket­ keeper’s pads on to the wicket (the batsman being out o f his ground) is the same run o u t ? ” M y contention is in the affirmative, and is based upon what follow s:— B y w ay of illus­ tration, law 28, dealing with a run out, reads thus “ I f in running, or at any other tim e . . . the w icket be struck down by the ball after touching any fieldsman, &c.” Now the wicket-keeper being indisputably a fieldsman I contend this tonching of him has equal significance with a ball rebounding off the legs. That the query submitted b y me is not a case of “ stum ping” but “ run out,” I base upon the fact that the form er, i.e. , “ stump­ in g ,” can only have an existence b y m om en­ tarily possession by either one or both hands, or a com ing off the hands, and qualified b y the actual reading o f law N o. 42, line 1, reading th u s:— “ I f he should take the ball for the purpose o f stum ping.” T he question at issue, i.e., m y query, in ­ volves integrally three distinct and separate laws of the game, nam ely 23, 28, and 42. I f not a “ run o u t” m y contention is that an absolute contradiction is involved, and the laws mentioned require revision w ith the view to consistency, and the rem oval of the differ­ ence of opinion which certainly exists, not only in England, but the Australian States, as to correct interpretation. W ith every apology I respectfully ask that you would be good enough to bring this com ­ munication under the notice of the comm ittee o f the M .C .C . w ith a view to consideration. Aw aiting an early reply, 1 am, &c., F . J. IR O N S ID E . A uthor of “ Commentaries upon Laws of Cricket, 1880 and 18(05 ’ ’— tw o editions. ©orresiponBence, The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions of his correspondents . A S U G G E S T IO N . To the Editor o f C r ic k e t . S i r , — I write to you in order to suggest a change in the laws of cricket which would, I am sure, tend to diminish the number of drawn games, which are now so regrettabl/ prevalent. I t appears to me that the present rule for the declaration of innings is strangely illogical. Supposing a side d( clares its second or even first innings with, say, four wickets down, it thereby consents to play its opponents having their full 20 wickets while only having 14 at its own disposal. N ow , Sir, w hy not allow that side to use its other 6 wickets if necessary ? I can best illustrate m y m eaning by giving an example. W e w ill imagine that the N orth are playing the S ou th ; the South bat first and make 250, the N orth reply with 190. In the second innings the South make 240 for 5 and declare, thus leaving the N orth with 301 to make in, say, five hours. Under the present law the N orth would stand an excellent chance of w in n in g; in fact the southern captain would be rash to declare, so the match would end, in all probability, in a tame draw. But if the southern captain were allowed to use his five outstanding wickets after the northerners’ second innings, if the latter should exceed the necessary 301 runs, he would be perfectly justified in declaring, and so the match would probably be finished. W e w ill suppose that the N orth make 340 in their second innings, thus being 39 runs ahead ; the South would then have their last five wickets to make the necessary 40 runs. T he great advantage o f m y suggestion is at once apparent. Captains would not shrink from declaring quite early enough to ensure their having time to dispose of their opponents and, if needs be, to knock off the few runs necessary for victory. A t all events they would have nothing to lose by declaring, while they m ight easily w in the game. There m aybe drawbacks to this suggestion; if there are any I should be interested to hear them. In any case, if the M .C .C . feel unable to make this somewhat drastic change in the laws, they could surely alter the standing law w hich allows a side to declare any time after lunch on the second day. W h y not allow them to declare any time at all, even on the first day ? I hope you w ill give this letter publicity, so that the disadvantages o f m y proposal may be pointed out to me b y your other corre­ spondents. I am, Sir, yours etc., W . A . R ic h a r d s . A ugust 4th. LONDON AND COUNTY BANK v. UNION B A N K .—Played at D ulw ich on July 29 and 30. U nion B ank . 8. A nson, b G oddard 9 E . A . Stephenson, c H ubbard, b G oddard 42 C.Summ ers.b G oddard 0 J.R obertson,bG oddard 0 G . Sim on, b G oddard 6 R . H . H ughes, c sub, b T ro w e ll..................... 4 J.Whicker,b Goddard E. Helson, b Goddard J.J. Brecknall, not out L. H. Colman, b Goddard................... Byes ..................... T otal ... L ondon and C ounty B ank . H .L . Hearsum, retired 16 P . F. A llen, not out... 32 C.W . G oddard, run out 22 E . G . Gayfer, b R obertson.....................36 J. J. Stiff, c Summers, b Colm an..................... 7 E. A . Eoaden, n otou t 10 B 3, lb 2, w 2 ... 7 T otal (4 w kfc) 130 F . D akin, 8. G . M arsh, J. K night, P . W . H ubbard, and C. R . Trowell did not bat.