Cricket 1904

110 CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. M ay 5, 1904. N otts . First, innings. Iremonger. c H*igh,bHirst 0 Gunn (G.), b Rhodes......SI Gunn (J.). b Rhodes ........... 7 Day, c Haigh, b Pingrose... 15 A. O. Jones, c Hunter, b Bbodps.................................12 Hardstaff. b bingrose .. 37 Anthony, b Bingrose......20 Oates, b R hodes.............1° Hallam, b Rhodes ..... 16 Wass, b Bingrose................... 21 Pennington, not o u t ........... 0 Leg-byes ... 3 Total .................162 Y o r k sh ir e . First innings. O. M. R. W . 20 2 89 3 ... 5 1 26 0 ... 28-1 7 53 6 ... l; 0 2 0 ... 12 8 56 1 Anthony ... Hardstaff ... N o tts . First innings. O. M. R. W . Rhodes ..........22 3 5 60 6 ... Hirst .......... 12 3 20 1 ... Haigh .......... 6 1 25 0 ... BiDgrose.......... 17 4 64 4 ... Pennington Wj»88 Hallam ... D ay.......... T Gunn (J.) Second innings. b Birgrose..........47 b Hirst................. 4 b Bingrose........ 26 b H irrt................31 c Hunter,b Bing­ rose .................11 lbw, b Haigh ... 7 b H irst................24 c Bhodes.b Haigh 5 not out .. ..........15 b Hirst .......... 7 c Tunricliffe, b B irst................ 0 B 4, lb 1 ... 5 Total ..182 Second iuninpv. O. M.R. W . .12 2 47 2 . 8 1 12 1 . 20 1 « 40 4 ,. 13 4 38 3 . 4 0 15 0 . 2 0 12 0 Second innings. O. M. B W. ! 21-5 5 59 5 .11 3 26 2 ,. 19 3 fO 3 The rules under which the match was played are as follows : — 1 .—E «ch innings to be limited to 4} hours. 2 .—Time saved in innings one and tvo to be added equally to innings thre^ and four, 'lime lost in innings one and two to be deducted equally from innings three and four. ?_T im e delayed in innirg* three to be divided equally between innirgs three and four. Time de­ layed in innings four to be m«de up if poseible by t*e unallotted iime, and if this is impossible the match to be decided on first innings. 4 —Match to be decided I y the number of runs scored irrespective of wickets lost. 5 .—Hours of play to be each day It.SO to 2.0, 2 45 to 6.80, wi h 1ea interval at 4.45 for fifteen minutes, if no other interval in afternoon. 6 —Boundaries not to exceed fixty yards frjm neareft wicket. . , 7 .—In cafe of rain sufficient ground to Te covered in a manner to protect bowlers’ and batsmen’s foot­ hold. and also each night. Play to be continued immediately on cefsation rf rain unless the captains agree that play is impossible. . . 8.—If «itner fide do not complete their first innings in allotted time to do so before commencing their second innings. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE VISIT OF THE M.C.C. TEAM TO AUSTRALIA. The follow ing remarks about matters which may come into notice when the next Australian team visits England are from an Australian point of view. They appeared in the Sydney M a il :— APPOINTMENT o f u m p ir e s . The difference in the conditions under which clicket is played in England and Australia is likely to cause certain diffi­ culties to arise when English teams come out here or when Australian elevens visit England. There was some bother when Maclaren brought cu t his side in the season of 1901-2 over the appointment of umpires. It was while the opening contest of the tour was being played that word arrived in Adelaide that fhe New South Wales Cricket Association had appointed tw o umpires for the Sydney match. The association here wished to take up a similar position to that, rather illegally, it m ight be observed, assumed by the Maiylebone Club in nominating officials for test matches in Eagland. Maclaren pointed out that he had done something towards Australians having a voice in the matter, and he promised the next team his assistance iu bringing about a different order of things. Well, the association here gave way, as it should have done. When the Australians got to England in 1902, they were allowed the power of veto, and in view of previous experience, they did not forget to enforce that right. Australians in England have had to put up with any umpires that might be allotted them, and they have had some peculiar and unpleasant experiences. Why the Marylebone Club—the maker of the laws of the game, should have for so long acted contrary to law is difficult to understand. The rule says :— “ Before the commencement of the match two umpires shall be appointed; one for each end.” This does not say who shall appoint the umpires, certainly, but Law 52 says : “ No umpire shall be changed during a match unless with the consent of both sides, except in case of violation of Law 51 (betting), then either side may dismiss him .” It is not intended to touch upon the pro­ vision in the event of an umpire b ettin g; fortunately for the reputation of the game, the enforcement thereof has not been necessary, at any rate, not in the memory of the writer. Surely, if it requires the authority of the two sides to remove an umpire it is necessary that the appointment of his successor must be mutually agreed upon by the two sides, and if that is admitted it may safely be stated they should have the right of ap­ pointment in the first place. Fortunately, there are very few instances in which the captains acting for the sides have mutually agreed to remove an umpire. It is not a very uncommon incident, though, in junior cricket. There is one case in good-class cricket in Sydney in which the two sides changed the umpire. I t is difficult to understand how anyone could contend that people or bodies should have the right of appointment of umpires as against the captains. As a matter o f expediency, such as competi­ tion matches, umpires are chosen by the governing body. They are, however, purely local rules, and cannot govern en­ gagements of the importance of Test matches— the highest standard of cricket there is. Notwithstanding that the matter was thrashed out in 1901 in Australia and in 1902 in England—when Australians were allowed the power of veto—there were still some matters not clear when Warner arrived in Australia. Prior to the depar­ ture of that team from England corres­ pondence was carried on between the premier cricket club of the world and Major Wardill, who was acting for the various Australian associations. Warner, however, took Argali from Adelaide to Melbourne, and intended also bringing him to Sydney. At Melbourne M ajor Wardill convinced the English captain that he was wrong, and the process of appointment then adopted was to select, say, a d( zen, names, to reduce that number to, say, eight, and to draw two names from the hat. That was what was done in Eng­ land v. Victoria match. In Sydney, a week later, the executive committee of the association allowed Noble and Warner to mutually agree upon two umpires, and probably that would have been done throughout had there not been a want of understanding between the Aus­ tralian captain and the New South Wales Cricket Association. A good deal of trouble followed. Eventually Warner had his way in having the two agreed upon b y him and Noble, on the understanding that the mode of choice was that each captain held the power of veto all along the line until two were agreed upon. Mr. Murdoch, the assistant secretary of the Marylebone Club, assured the representatives of the association that the M.C.C.-Australian Eleven method was the same as that above; and this ended the matter for the time being. There will be, however, correspondence between the New South Wales Cricket Association and the Marylebone Club. The whole matter should, in m y opinion, be left to the two captains, who, as is reasonably interpreted from the law, are the only two people who have the right of ap­ pointment of umpires. Trouble is now com ing from another direction. The affronted New South Wales umpires have risen in their wrath, and threaten to resign ; iu fact, some have already done so. They wanted the association to call upon Noble and Warner to explain why they in effect branded the whole of the New South Wales umpires as incom­ petent. The association took no special course in the matter, and the only purpose the document of protest has served is to make the officials look ridiculous. Still, I think we have just as good umpires in Sydney as the two who were imported. That, however, rests, or should rest, as I have above pointed out, with the captains, and there should be no appeal against their decision. th e c lo su re . Trouble No. 2 is the right of exercis­ ing the closure in Australia. The English captain and H ill, the South Australian, agreed to apply the closure after lunch on the second day. I t scarcely meets all objection to say that the captains agreed. Everything in the game should be played with extreme seriousness; nothing should be done even b y arrangement to depart from rules. It was at the time pointed out that the law, as it originally stood, said that in the last day of a match. . . . the iu bide shall be empowered to declare the innings at an end. It was claimed that this did not go far enough, that it should be possible to apply the closure after lunch on the day before the last d a y ; that is in effect what was done, but instead of say­ ing the s<cond last day, the rule states second day. And the object was to lessen the number of drawn games. (To be continued).