Cricket 1910

A u g u s t 25, 1910. CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 359 DERBYSHIRE y. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Played at Blackwell on August 18,19 and 20. Drawn. Rain caused play to be abandoned on the first day at half-past four, but during the time available Notts ran up 230 for six wickets. The feature of the play was the batting of Whysall, a new-comer, who brought off many good strokes in scoring 50 out of 112in 80minutes. He hit five 4’s, and in partner­ ship with George Gunn made 100 for the first wicket in 70minutes. Most of his runs were made in front of the wicket, but when 18 he should have been caught at third man by Needham off Warren. The good start was not maintained, for the sixth wicket fell at 173. James Iremonger and Lee then raised the total to 230, and were still together when the rain came down. On Friday the innings closed for 261 after 45 minutesplay. Derbyshire lost Needham and Humphries for 7 runs. Curgenven then went in and played a splendid innings. In 40 minutes he scored 50 out of 67 and in 85 minutes made 101 out of 132. Altogether he made 109 out of 142 in an hour and a-half, hitting six 6’s and eleven 4’s. His brilliant cricket was not without fault, for he was missed when 23, 87 and 99. Following his dismissal, Root and Oliver added 68 in 35 minutes, and Derbyshire, after batting for three hours and ten minutes, were all out for 246—a very creditable performance. In the last 70minutesof the day Notts scored 89 forthree wickets(Geo. Gunn 61 not out). On Saturday not a ball could be bowled owing to rain. Score and analysis:— N otts . First innings. Gunn (G.), c Humphries, b Root..........................51 Whysall, b Rickman......50 61 Hardstaff, b Warren 16 Payton, c Gregory, b Root 2 Gunn(John), c Humphries, b Warren ......................32 Iremonger (J.), c Hum­ phries, b Warren .........47 A. O. Jones, b Morton ... 1 Lee, run out......................39 Oates, cNeedham,b Morton 5 Clifton, c Root, b Warren... 2 not out. Wass, not out ... ......... 2 1310, lb 3, w 1 .........14 Second innings. not out......... c Humphries, Warren ... c Gregory, Warren ... lbw, b Root Total Needham, c Clifton, b Iremonger ......... 1 Morton, c Lee, b Ire­ monger ............... 12 Humphries, c Oates, b Wass...................... 1 G. Curgenvcn, b Wass109 T. Forester, b Wass ... 2 G. R. Gregory, c Oates, b Clifton............... 10 ..261 D e r b y s h ir e . B 4,w l,n bl... 6 Total (3 wkts) 89 L. Oliver,b Iremonger 39 Root, lbw, bGunn (J.) 49 J. Chapman, c Oates, b Iremonger . Warren, not out R. B. Rickman, Gunn (J.') B 1, lb 1......... Total ...246 N otts . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. ~ ” Warren.........34’1 13 83 4 Morton......... 29 9 71 2 . Forester......... 4 0 18 0 . Rickman ... 13 2 36 1 . Root ......... 16 4 39 2 . Warren bowled two wides and Morton one no-ball. D e r b y s h ir e . Wass......... 23 6 95 3 1Clifton ... 15 Iremonger. 16 5 69 4 Jones ... 1 Gunn (J.)... 10-1 4 27 2 | O. 12 M. R. W. 2 40 2 3 25 0 1 18 0 0 1 2 44 1 0 9 0 LONDON SCOTTISH v. WILLESDEN PARK.— Played at Brondesbury on August 20. L o n d o n S c o t tis h . S. Lienard, run out ... 48 J. S. Chown, b Artaud 46 W. G. Henderson, run out ..................... 21 F. H. Robbins, c Gra­ ham, b Artaud ... 8 H. C. Hodgson, lbw, b Hancock ... ...21 Total (7wkts)*257 * Innings declared closed. S. Artaud and A. Angus Thomas did not bat. W il le sd e n P a r k . F. R. Connell, not out 60 C. C. Tollit, b Hancock 8 R. A. Bennett, c McGaw, b Felce ... 29 R. Suttill, not out ... 6 B 6, lb 3, w 1 ... 10 F. A. Kup, c Tollit, b Thomas ............... 18 N.11.Brieley, bLienard 27 C. Artaud, c Bennett, b Lienard............... 1 G. W. Cole, lbw, b Thomas ............... 0 E.T. Boddam,b Lienard 14 E. McGaw, b Lienard 4 F.E.G.Ernst,b Lienard 0 — Hancock, st Ben­ nett, b Thomas ... J. D. Graham, b Thomas ............... M. Goodfellow, b Lienard............... G. Felce, not out ... B 1, lb l................ Total ... ... KENT 2 n d XI. v. ESSEX 2 n d XI Played at Hythe on August 12 and 13 and left drawn. Score:— K e n t 2 n d XI. K. Barlow, c Davies, b Edwards..................38 Jennings, b Smith ... 98 Hardinge, st Colman, b Clarke .................131 L. H. W. Troughton, c Davies, b Russell ... 18 H.E.W.Prest,cDavies, b Russell..................73 Collins, b Smith........... 44 W. A. Powell, c Davies, b Smyth ..................23 E s s e x 2 n d XI, First innings. Russell(A. C.), cTroughton, b Hardinge ...............51 Freeman (J.), b Preston ... 79 R. A. Boyd, c Free­ man, b Smith Morfee, c Russell, b Smith ............... Preston, not out W. T. Monckton, c Freeman, b Smith Byes, &c........... Total ...474 Second innings. notout............... 7( c Jennings, b Barlow .........3' G. B. Davies, c Preston, b Morfee............................ 7 notout... E. C. K. Clarke, b Preston 32 R. Edwards, b Powell ... 2 Freeman (E. J.), b Morfee 37 J. Smyth, b Powell ......... 1 E. C. Colman, b Morfee ... 11 Russell (E.), b Preston ... 7 Smith, not out .............. 4 C. J. Kortright, c and b Preston ...................... 1 Byes 2, lb 4, nb 3 ......... 9 Total ............... 241 B 2, nb 2 ... 4 Total (1 wkt) 125 SUFFOLK v. NORFOLK. Played at Ipswich on August 3 and 4 and won by Suffolk by 98 rnns. Score and analysis S u f f o lk . Firet innings. b 91 1 and Rev. F. N. Bird, Allsopp .................... K. Rayner, b Fulcher W. Catchpole, b Fulcher . Second innings, c Allsopp, b Gib­ son ............... 8 lbw, b Gibson ... 44 c Gibson, b Birk­ beck .........41 S. Hill-Wood, c and b Allsopp ......................28 H. L. Wilson, c Thurgar, b Allsopp ...................... 0 Penfold, c and b Allsopp... 4 F. P. Wood, b Fulcher ... 38 V. J. Lewis, lbw, b Fulcher 5 P. P. Cornell, c N. Stevens, b Gibson ...................... 2 notout......... Rev. H. F. Steel, b Gibson 16 run out Trudgett, not out .........15 b Allsopp . Byes, &c......................20 Byes, &c. c Baker, b Allsopp 12 c G. Stevens, b Gibson .........15 b Gibson .........11 run out ......... 5 lbw, b Gibson ... 2 Total............... 228 N orfolk . First innings. R. W. Collinson, b Penfold 4 S. E. Baker, lbw, b Trudgett 7 G. A. Stevens, c Cornell, b Raynor ......................87 G. W. Birkbeck, c and b Trudgett ...................... 0 N. W. Stevens, b Trudgett o C. J. Treglown, b Penfold 3 Total.........154 Second innings. b Trudgett.........12 c Raynor, b Pen­ fold .............. 2 c Trudgett, b Raynor .........22 lbw, b Raynor ... 13 b Raynor .........11 st Cornell, b Pen­ fold ............... 3 R. W. Thurgar, st Cornell, b Trudgett ......... .. 12 notout... E. J. Fulcher, st Cornell, b Penfold ......................14 Gower Williams, notout... 34 Allsopp, b Penfold .........14 Gibson, b Penfold ......... 1 Byes, &c............... 0 b Raynor ......... 6 c and b Raynor... 9 cWilson,bRaynor 19 b Raynor ......... 0 Leg-byes......... 2 Total ........176 Total ...108 S uffolk . First innings. Second innings. O. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Allsopp ... ... 27 8 54 4 ... ... 22-1 7 45 2 Fulcher... ... 25-2 9 62 4 ... ... 6 1 18 0 Williams ... 8 2 19 0 ... ... 4 0 13 0 Collinson ... 2 0 4 0... Gibson ... ... 16 5 42 2 ... ... 23 4 56 5 Birkbeck ... 4 0 27 0 ... ... 3 0 16 1 N orfolk . First innings. Second innings. ,o. M. R. W. O. M. R. W. Trudgett ... 21 4 84 4 ... ... 11 0 82 1 Penfold ... ... 25*3 6 64 5 ... ... 22 . 8 35 2 Steel ... 6 2 19 0 ... Wood ... 1 0 5 0... Raynor ... ... 2 0 4 1... 12 3 39 7 AN IN TER E ST ING POINT. If the facts may be taken as admitted, the umpire’s decision at Bath by which Cox was given out when stumped off a no-ball was deplorably wrong, remarks the Field. It seems to be beyond dispute that the batsman did not touch the ball, but he was dismissed by the umpire as “ run out.” This means that, although the striker is specially exempted by law 16 from being stumped oft a no-ball, the wicket-keeper may get rid of him by going through the action of stumping in all the circumstances which fulfil the definition of stumping (law 23), and may procure an adverse verdict by the simple device of adjusting the indictment and asking “ How’s that for run out? ” or, since the expression “ How’s that ? ” covers every conceivable count on which a batsman may be condemned (law 46), that the umpire, on being asked this simple question, must spontaneously bethink himself of this unworthy sophism for defeating the plain intention of the law. It would seem to follow as an indisputable corollary that a striker whose wicket is broken by a no-ball, though he is not bowled, may be declared to be run out if he has gone out of his ground to hit. On this principle it may someday be contended that, in spite of law 16, no batsman has a right to leave his crease in the act of hitting a no-ball, or even to hit it at all, since by so doing he is interfering with a fieldsman’s (the bowler’s) attempt to run him out, and is out for obstructing the field (law 30). Yet it is obviously the intention of the law that every facility for punishing a no-ball should be afforded, and it is with this view that the umpire is directed to call the no-ball as soon as it has left the bowler’s hand. That the striker must remain in his ground at his own peril when hitting is absolutely novel doctrine, which renders his exemption from the danger of being stumped entirely nugatory, and makes the law ridiculous. The matter is worthy of serious attention because (1) in the face of the abortive attempt to procure a similar decision on the part of the Kent wicket-keeper at Maidstone in the Northamptonshire match it would appear probable that the umpire at Bath was not taken by suprise, but expressed his deliberate conviction; (2) attempts have been made both in print and in cricket field conversation to justify the quibble; (3) it may be regarded as one of the evil fruits of the thoroughly vicious decision given by the M.C.C. committee when they declared that the striker could be run out by the bowler throwing instead of bowling at his wicket. It is high time that a revision of this ruling and an official declaration of the true law of the case should be obtained. In this connection it may be pointed out that any tampering with the logic of the laws of cricket may lead to an infinity of undesirable complications. For example, in addition to the aforementioned consequences, as soon as no-ball is called, the wicket­ keeper, by the Bath decision, would be exempted from the action of law 42, and would be at liberty to take the ball for the purpose of a run out in front of the wicket, or even to “ incommode the striker by any noise or motion.” In short, as soon as a no-ball is delivered a state of anarchy ensues, and all law is suspended except martial law in the bowler’s favour. The injustice to the striker in all these cases is aggravated if the umpire is slow in calling the no-ball.