Cricket 1906

M a t 17, 1906. CRICKET: A. WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 137 1896, when the Australians were dis­ missed by J. T. Hearne and Pougher for 18 runs. ------ A n o t h e r great bowling performance at the end of last week occurred in the match between Lancashire and Warwick­ shire at Old Trafford, Harry having the following analysis against Warwickshire : O. M. E. W. First innings ................. 16.1 6 26 6 Second innings ........ 22 6 44 9 H a r r y , I may add, is a Devonian born, and a reliable informant gives Torquay as his birthplace. H e is best known as a Rugby footballer, and has done excellent service as full-back for the Broughton Rangers in the Northern Union. He joined the ground staff of the Lancashire County C.C. at Old Trafford four or five seasons ago, and, as was the case with Lockwood at the Oval, if not primarily engaged, was at first more fancied as a batsman than a bowler. He is a sturdily built fellow of medium height and 23 or 24 years of age. Though he did excel­ lent work for the Manchester Club as well as for Lancashire Second, and accompanied the First as twelfth man on several tours last season, he hardly got a real chance till the end of 1905, when he batted with great success against an England X I. at Blackpool. He bowls right-hand medium to fast, has a nice easy action with a ball which turns both ways, and an occasional deadly one which whips in from the off. Altogether he is likely to be a great acquisition to the Lancashire side. One was tempted to ask, on seeing the names of P. Perrin, C. McGahey, and J. W. H . T. Douglas, the Essex cricketers, in the list of players who represented Granville (Lee) in the match against Tonbridge last week, “ Que diable allaient ils faire dans cette galere ? ” At any rate they rendered very efficient service to Granville, Perrin scoring 135 not out, and McGahey 34, while they shared the wickets between them. P errin also scored 71 (retired) for Ess?x Club and Ground against Lough- ton, and 105 not out against Beckton, so that he was in good practice for the Surrey and Essex match last Monday. C. J. Kortright made 44 and W. M. Turner 64 for the Club and Ground in the Loughton match, while Douglas took five wickets for 36 runs. In the Beckton match Douglas scored 54. T he day after the heavy thunder­ storms, which nearly devastated some of the London suburbs last week, the Evening Standard published a poem entitled “ An Invocation.” The first and last lines were as follows :— Open your gates, 0 Summer, fling back your portals wide! * * * * * Step forth from your throne, 0 Summer, and give us from out your store. Some of the inhabitants of the suburbs must have felt like the farmer, with hay not yet carried, when the parson prayed for rain. T h e r e has been abundant opportunity of late for testing the theory that interest in first-class cricket is declining because so many matches are drawn. Every first- class match played this season up to Saturday was finished, but in not a single one of them was there even a moderately large crowd on the third day, although in every case it was a moral certainty that the game would be played to a finish. The theory may now be con­ sidered as exploded. I f the Sydney correspondent of the Daily Mail is right in saying that the New South Wales Cricket Association has actually disqualified Noble and others because they have promised to play for the Melbourne C.C. if it brings out a team from England, things must have arrived at a pretty pass in Australia. In England we are not unfamiliar with the word “ disqualification,” for the foot­ ball season has only recently passed away, but happily it has never made its mark in cricket. One cannot imagine the Scottish Ciicket Association, dis­ qualifying the McHaggis and his friends because they have promised to play for the Marylebone C.C. Further developments will be awaited with curiosity. T h e above cablegram is corroborated by another from a private source. It seems that Trumper and Cotter have not yet come under the ban of the N.S.W. Association because they are on tour in Queensland. There also seems to be a split among the different clubs in Mel­ bourne. If any team from England visits Australia while affairs are in the present state its promoters will have only themselves to blame if the tour proves a failure. T h e chief.moral of the match at Lord’s last week between Derbyshire and the M.C.C. is that a side which ought to win may lose its chance of victory by pre­ senting the other side with many iuns through bad fielding. If the fielding of the Derbyshire players had been as good as that of their opponents they would have saved just about enough runs to enable them to win by a small margin. It was not in catching that the side was at fault, but in ground fielding, and it is a fair estimate to say that fifty of the runs made by the M.C.C. were directly attributable to bad fielding. Fortunately it is very early in the season, and it may be taken for granted that Derbyshire will not neglect the lesson which they must have learned at Lord’s. I n G. M. Buckston, who made 51 in the second innings, Derbyshire seem to have a most promising batsman, a player who has a strong defence and can hit hard along the ground. He played once for the county last year and made thir­ teen. In 1903 he was in the Cambridge eleven, while in 1900 he represented Eton against Harrow at Lord’s. T h e dismissal of King, the Leicester­ shire professional—he ‘ ‘ hit the ball twice ’ ’ —in the match against Surrey at the Oval last week, has naturally been the subject of comment. King played a ball from Knox, but seeing that it was rolling into his wicket struck it again, and moved out of his ground as if about to run. An appeal was made for 11hit the ball twice,” and, after a consultation between the two umpires, Millward gave King out. I m y s e l f saw a precisely similar incident in first-class cricket as long ago as 1872. Sussex were playing Surrey at Brighton in August of that year, and Charlwood, of Sussex, after playing the ball seeing it rolling towards the stumps hit it a second time, and in so doing stepped over the crease. A. A. Reed, his partner, backed up for the run, but Charlwood sent him back. Julius Caesir, of Surrey, who was umpiring, gave Charlwood out for hitting the ball twice. Charlwood had made 73, and, as Sussex lost by two wickets, the decision no doubt lost them the match. Mr. A. D. Taylor, of Brighton, kindly recalls three other similar cases. Barlow was given out for infringement of Rule 27 at Lord’s (North v. South) in 1878, Lillty, when playing for Warwickshire v. Yorkshire in 1897, and Holland, of Lei­ cestershire, in a match v. Essex, in August, 1892. T he case is simple enough. It will be noticed that Law 27, which bears on it, says nothing whatever about running, but it has been the custom from time immemorial to consider that a batsman has forfeited his wicket if he starts for a run after hitting the ball twice. The law reads as follows: The striker is out “ if the ball be struck or stopped by any part of his person, and he willully strike it again, except it be done for the purpose of guarding his wicket, which he may do with his bat, or any part of his person except his hands;—Hit the ball twice.” B ut in a note to Law 27, the M.C.C. in their “ Decisions and Interpretations ” have made the question absolutely clear. The note says : “ It is for the umpire to decide whether the ball has been struck ‘ wilfully ’ for some purpose other than that of guarding the wicket. The fact that a run is attempted may be evidence of the batsman’s iutention to take advantage of the second stroke and the umpire is entitled to regard it as such, but it is not conclusive.” The point is that it is for the umpire to decide ; there is no getting behind that. The case would seem to be parallel to that mentioned by the judge. “ If you see a man coming out of a public-house you have presumptive evidence that he has been taking a drink, but if you see him wiping his mouth with the back of his hand, you may consider it as very strong presumptive evidence that he has been taking a drink.” The umpire may con­ sider it presumptive evidence of an attempt to make a run if a batsman leaves his ground after hitting the ball twice, but if the batsman calls his partner, as King seems to have done, the umpire may consider it is very strong presump­ tive evidence indeed that he wishes to profit by his action.