Cricket 1909

Nov. 25, 1909 CR ICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 4 5 3 Greatly daring, they played annual matches with the European Gymkhana, and were invariably beaten. Newnham, the demon bowler, was their terror for years, and made short work of them.t The fights were plucky, although they always ended in disaster. But the Parsis were taught by a long succession 1 f reverses finally to meet their victors on even terms. Their first victory was by two runs in a most sensational match with the Gymkhana.* It created an enthusiasm which sustained them for some years. That was their golden period of cricket, when they carried all before them. It has been followed by a seasou of lassitude and indifference, the effects of which a-e now apparent. Their neighbours have come up to them and threaten to outstrip them. The Parsis are paying the pena'ty of a spell of unbroken prosperity in cricket. Under the influence of their neighbours example, tbe Musalmnns have been eagerly cultivating cricket, and are steadily progress­ ing But I think it is too soon to prefer a claim on their behalf fur admission to the intt-rnational contest. The Hon. Mr. Ibrahim Hahimtoola proposes a quadrangular, instead of a triangular, match. Apart from the practical difficulties of prolonging the engagement, it is premature, on more sub­ stantial grounds, to entertain the proposal. It may be possible to form a presentable Mahomedan combination, if a diligent searph for suitable men were made all over India. It is true that we can point to one or two Musalman exponents of the game who are good enough to be included in an all-India eleven. But when Musalmans, as a com­ munity, come to take an interest in the game, as the Parsis are doicg, and to an increasing extent the Hindus, then alone w ill the content assume a representative character, and then alone w ill be time to consider whether they should not also be admitted to the charmed circle. Our neigh­ bours have learnt the value of agitation, and in this matter they may keep knocking at the door until it is opened. The Mahomedans are not awakening. Be it said to their credit, they have awakened already, and they may lay ihemselves out for presidential honours in cricket as vigorously as they have bestirred themselves in other directions. - The Bom bay G azette. __ tCav>t A. H. Newnhain, tho Old Malveruian, who played occasionally for Worcestershire and Glou­ cestershire.— E d ., Cricktt. SUBSTITUTES. * A t Bombay in 18S9.— E d . , Cricket. C R IC K E T IN A U S T R A LIA . SOUTH AUSTRALIA v. VICTORIA. At Adelaide on Friday last South Australia beat Victoria by an innings and 211 rans.sCQ nngVJ- (Hill ITU, Gehrs 118) against 284 and 97. who were without some of their best players, followed-on. GEORGE LEW IN & Co., (Established 1869.) Club Colour Specialists and Athletic Clothing Manufacturers. OUTFITTERS BY APPOINTMENT To the Australians, 1896,1899 and 1902 ; f 5 XI., 1894-1895, 1897-1898; M r MaeLaren s i l . , 1901-1902 ; West Indian XI., 1900 and 1906 , South Africans XI., 1901 and 1907; and U C.C., Lancasmre, Kent, Surrey and London Counties,Wanderers.Stoics. Bromley,^Sutton,^andeal^F^^Jc ^Schoots^^Old Boys Telegraphic Address : “ city 601. 8, Crooked Lane, Monument, Londou Bridge, E.C H aving read some little time ago in an Australian newspaper some remarks relating to the laws of Substitutes, I took some pains to investigate the matter. The news­ paper in question contended that a batsman who has been injured by a bowler should not, after retiring from the wicket, be allowed to resume his innings, and that the bowler should be credited with the wicket. The writer also related that a law once existed which said that once a batsman retired through injury he was out irrevoc- ably. My opinion is that the writer who formed the opinion that the batsman is out detiuitely, and that the bowler is entitled to be credited with the wicket takes an extraordinary view of the matter— a view quite contrary to law and custom. In the first place, there is no rule embodied in the laws of the game which states that a bowler is entitled to a wicket under such circumstances; but there is a iule (36) which states that “ A batsman shall not retire from his wicket and return to it without the consent of the other side.” The invariable custom— practically an unwritten law— is to allow an injured player who had to retire to continue his innings later in the same innings. If a bowler be allowed credit for wickets gained through injuring the batsman an incentive would be given the unscrupulous player to depart from the legitimate way of attaining his ends. And, to carry the reason­ ing a little further, if a fieldsmau, in return­ ing tbe ball from the field, accidentally injured the batsman so severely that he had to retire, would it be equitable to credit the fieldsman with the wicket? Now as to the other portion of the question — the existence of the rule stating that once a batsman retired he was out definitely, and could not return to the wicket. One is of the opinion that such a rule never existed. On the contraiy, the rule allowing him to return to the wicket was incorporated in the first laws ever framed, fully 160 years apo. The discussion relating to substitutes opens up an interesting chapter in the history of the game. In C rick et of July 27th, 1905, Mr. A. D. Taylor (a collector of cricketana whose library contains over 2,000 volumes), in answer to a request to give a history of the changes which have been made in the law of substitution, stated that he had made a diligent search for same, and that the first reference to the law was to be found in W illiam Lambert's Cricket Guide, published in 1816 (and reprinted quite recently in the columns of C ricket). He quoted the rule, which read: “ If a striker is hurt, some person may be allowed to stand out for him, but not go in.” Interpreted, the rule means that a player, being hurt, another would be allowed to field for him, but not to bat in his place. Mr. Taylor then proceeded to give different rules on substitutes till the present time. However, his statement regarding the first- mentioned is hardly correct, for in a charming little book on cricket, published in 1851, en­ titled “ The Cricketer's Manual,” by “ Bat,” the statement. The rules referred to were Iublished for the first time in the ‘‘ Cricketer s Manual,” and subsequently in “ The Theory and Practice of Cricket,” by the same author, in 1868. Therein he prefaced his remarks by stating : “ About 20 years ago (1818) the literary executor of a once-famous cricketing fam ily placed a manuscript in the hands of the writer hereof (Mr. Box), in which were a few things ‘ hard to be understood,’ but the laws of cricket in the middle of the 18th century (1750) could be easily made out, and in order to a right appreciation of their validity they were published in the “ Cricket M an u al” (above referred to, the 1851 edition being the fifth), at that time the on.y book treating on the history of the game extant.” These rules are not numbered, but several are grouped under different headings, such as “ Laws for ye Bowlers 4 balls and over,” &c. Under the heading, “ Laws for ye Um­ pires,” appears the following: “ To allow 2 Minutes for each man to come in when one is out, and 10 Minutes between Each Hand (the early nomenclature for innings). To mark ye B a ll that it may not be changed. They are sole judges of all outs and ins, of all fair and unfair Play, of frivolous delays of all hurts whether real or pretended, and are discretionally to allow what time they think proper before ye Game goe3 on again. In case of a real hurt to a Striker they ate to allow another to come in, and the Person hurt to come in again. But are not to allow a fresh Man to Play on either side on any Account . . . .” This, then— the first rule ever published — states that no substitute w ill be allowed on a n y account. Here is one’s reason for believing (hat the manuscript laws, as published by Mr. Box in “ The Cricketers’ M an u al” and “ The Theory and Practice of Cricket ” are au­ thentic : In “ The Dawn of Cricket," published by the Mar lebone Club, the contents of which weie compiled by Mr. H . T. Waghorn, and edited by Lord Harris, appear (on page 89) “ New Articles of the Game of Cricket,” as settled at the Star and Garter, P a ll M all, February 25th, 1774, &c., and alongside these are published the Old Laws of the Game, i.e ., those in vogue before 1774. These old rules are identical with those published by Mr. Box from his manuscript, with but a few trifling exceptions ; for instance, the headings above the rules are more comprehensive in the manuscript than in the “ Dawn of Cricket, and the word “ the ” is spalt “ ye ” in tho manuscript. Those are the only differences to be observed, and Mr. Box is entitled^ to the credit of la v in g unearthed the earliest set of laws ever known. The Rules relating to Substitutes appear under the heading of “ The Umpire.” * The first mention of a substitute being reference is made to the earliest rules ever published. Before quoting part of these rules, which are the quaintest one has ever read, it maybe stated that “ B a t” was the nom de-plum e of Charles Box, one of the cleverest writers and most competent his­ torians of our English game of cricket, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of allowed to field in place of an injured bats­ man is in 1798 (“ Britcher’s Score-Book” ). The rule, as printed, is : “ If the striker is hurt, some person may be allowed to stand out (field) for him, but not go in (bat).” This is 18 years before Mr. Taylor says he noticed it. In 1776 substitutes were allow-ed to bat, several instances being recorded in “ Scores and Biographies.” The laws, however, made no allowance for such. The first instance * The oldest Laws extant are those drawn up by the London Club at the Artillery Ground in 1744. They were subsequently “ settled by the several Cricket Clubs, particularly that of the Star and Garter in Pall M all" and published as a pamphlet (19 pages and a folding plate) at sixpence in 1705. -Ed., Cricket,