Cricket 1913

J une 28, 1913. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 355 Special Club Notes. C o n tribu ted by T he C h iel . The question of the umpire’s powers has been much dis­ cussed of late, and a rather amusing instance in which the writer was concerned occurred last week at the Oval. I umpired owing to one of the side failing to turn out at the last moment, and during the innings of the Surrey C. and G. side Peach hit a ball to leg. After the stroke was made my attention was drawn to a short run. Meantime the ball had reached the boundary, and rebounded from the seats some 20 yards. I had not noticed the boundary, for the ball was returned quickly after the rebound, and I called “ one short.” The pavilion was almost shaken by the laughter that followed, and during lunch and the rest of the day “ one short” was a catchword. Now, Mr. A. M. L., you were anxious that this should appear in print, and here you have a full confession of my innocent mistake. Do you recall another case of a “ short run ” ? Once again I wish to refer to the liberal policy of the Surrey C .C .C . in fixing up matches between the C. and 0 . and the various clubs of the county. These games are always appreciated, and they are naturally instructive. _ I am doubtful, however, whether any club can display their best form after fielding for nearly four hours. Battersea had_ to do that, and the score was over 400 before the declaration was made. Now the duration of the average club match is very little over four hours, so that this sort of thing is an unusual experience for a club side, and the men can scarcely be expected to do well after it against bowling of a higher class than that which they usually meet. But at worst a good hiding from such a team as the S. C. and G. usually turn out is no disgrace, and one learns—or should learn— things from it. I have taken part in cricket of many types, but I have never umpired all day at the Oval before. Standing from 11 till 6.30, less the luncheon rest, I realized what the first-class umpire’s work means, and can well believe that every penny of his fee is earned. Should you doubt, try a long day’s umpiring yourself at the Oval in a broiling sun ! I have just a word to say to one or two of the younger professionals-—in future accept the decision of the umpire with good grace. To accept the decisions given—whether right or wrong—with facial ex­ pressions of utter scorn is not cricket as I have always known it played.* * I am afraid that “ one short ” rather spoiled the Chiel’s credit! — E d ito r . Talking of umpires and their duties, I watched the very interesting match between the Poor Law Boys of the -Metropolis and the selected boys of the Battersea Schools last week, and noted that during the game five umpires officiated. There would have been more had the masters had their own way, for each thought himself fitter for thepost than anyone else apparently. I thought then, and I still think, that neutral umpires would have been preferable. The game was an exciting one, and the cheers of the thousands of kiddies at the fall of every wicket still ring in my ears. Each side had two innings; the Poor Law Boys had 22 to win, and at the fall of the tenth wicket (playing 12 aside) the match was a tie. The last lad came in, took guard, spat in his palms, looked round the field, twisted his bat in his little hands, again took guard, slammed the first ball for four, and won the match! In several matches of late I have noticed repeated cases of batsmen breaking Law 29, that dealing with handling the ball. It is the usual thing for club wicket-keepers nowa­ days to stand well back for fast bowling. A batsman stops the ball almost dead, and in nine cases out of ten there is the chance of a run with good backing up. But the run is not thought of, and rather than trouble the keeper to come up to the wicket the batsman, without even being asked, will pick up the ball and return to the bowler. This is a breach of the law. I observed that in the dressing-room at the Oval the authorities had placed a notice drawing atten­ tion to this, saying that the umpires had instructions to carry out the rule, and pointing out also it was not in the interest of the game that such opportunities for making a run should be overlooked. Possibly some of my readers will think this is carrying the rigour of the game to extremes. I do not think so. The rule is perfectly clear and comprehensible (which is more than some of them are). Short runs (I don’t mean of the umpire brand*) brighten the game, and may make all the difference at the end of it. * The game at the Oval appears to have been brightened in some sense by one of this sort, though!— E d ito r. ----- ■ -tr’g-a- ■■ Correspondence. To the Editor of C ric k e t. D e ar S ir , — I have read with interest your note on Mr. Foster’s suggestion (Cricket, April 26), and the contribution signed W. H. (Cricket, May 3) on the revision of Cricket Laws. They recall an idea that occurred to me years ago, when Sunday games were stopped by Government at the instance, I believe, of Bishop Welldon,|who was then the Metropolitan of India. The prohibition did not affect hockey or football; but it was a hard blow to cricket. Most of the local cricket enthusiasts belong to the trades. To them Sunday was the only day in the week when they could enjoy the game (merchant houses, as a rule, do not close, except on Sundays and Bank-holidays, and the latter are but few in the season). With the stoppage, half­ day games on Saturdays alone became possible to them. But half-day matches are never satisfactory, and have little attrac­ tion for players. Thus the game suffered, and to-day the standard of play in Calcutta is distinctly lower. This could have been avoided, a close Sunday notwithstanding, if Saturday games could be finished, each side having a complete innings. There appeared three possible ways to this (a) Shortening the pitch from 22 yards to, say, 20 yards. (b) Widening the wicket by the addition of a fourth stump, or increasing the height of the stumps by an inch or so. (c) Reducing the width of the bat from 4J in. to, say, 3J in. Of these, the last— reducing the width of the bat— appeared the most acceptable. I did not publish my views at the time, as I thought I should only be laughed at for my pains. Mr. Foster’s example encourages me now. Regarding Mr. Foster’s suggestion, it does not seem desirable to have one size of ball for county cricket and another for club cricket. The bowler, unless he is a genius, has to be accustomed to one size, or his length will suffer. Nor does it appear that a smaller ball will dismiss the bats­ man more quickly, even with a greater amount of spin and turn ; for, the wicket will have to be narrowed down so that the ball may not pass through. Again, the weight remaining the same, the smaller ball will travel with greater speed, owing to less air resistance, rendering it more difficult to field at close quarters. There will be more damaged hands and damaged bats too. A narrower bat, on the other hand, will materially shorten the career of the average batsman. It is the average men that mainly make up a side. The innings will therefore be finished much sooner. The really good batsman, however, who meets the bowling with the centre of the bat, will be little affected. Nay, it is even possible that, a narrower bat being a much lighter weapon, his timing will be better, especially with strokes behind the wicket. Lastly, the narrower bat should be cheaper, and, being thicker at the edges, will wear better— advantages by no means inconsiderable— good-class willow getting dearer every day. Yours, etc., S. R a y , Principal, The Metropolitan Institution, College Department, Calcutta.