James Lillywhiite's Cricketers' Annual 1874

C H A P T E R I V. M O O TP O I N T SI N C R I C K E T . B Y W Y K E H A M I S T . It is only when a game comes to be really popular , and played at all sorts of places far away from the range of any central authority , that the fact becomes apparent that rules , however numerous and skilfully contrived , can no more be madeto meet all possible contingencies than they can be confined within aspecified number, or be restricted as to the numberof words they are to contain . A slong as cricket was practically confined to Lord's , and to the various local county clubs headed by members of the M.C.C. and depending principally on players whohad received the finishing touches of their professional education at head-quarters , the custom of the M.C.C. was substantially equal to law. Just such license as the umpires at Lord's liked to give to bowlers who broke the letter of the old LawX. by bowling above the level of their shoulders (and old Lillywhite was a most flagrant offender in this respect , though he could bowl low if he wished) was given everywhere else . Just as muchtime as they liked to give for a fresh batsman to comein, or as the interval between innings , and both were, and are , often in excess of that allowed in LawXXXVIII,. becamethe general allowance , and so on. Fewdifficulties arose , and they were settled by reference to the Committee, which meant, in fact , Lord Frederick Beauclerc , Mr. E. H. Budd, Mr. W. Ward, Mr. B. Aislabie , or some other recognised authority of the period , and the practice became settled if the rule was inadequate. Again, in the early days of cricket , the rules had at least the advantage of having been constructed to suit the game as it was played , (for , of course , the gamepreceded the rules ) which is not nowthe case . Whenalterations in the game arose , as, for instance , at the introduction of round-hand bowling , the rules were never revised throughout so as to meet the modified condition of affairs , but they were only tinkered up from time to time, so that they are still patchy , and in some points inefficient , though they work fairly well in practice , and we seldom or never hear of any serious dispute arising out of their omissions or imperfections . W eknowthat whena ball passes the long- stop (even sometimes whenit does not) and the batsmen take the risk of makinga run or more, this run or these runs are scored to the credit of the in side by the scorer , with the consent of the umpires ; and this though there is no provision , good or bad, for " byes " in the laws . W e know that , if the ball whenbowled hits the batsman and no run is attempted , the umpire does not, as a matter of fact , ejaculate " leg -bye," according to his instructions in LawXIII.; and we also knowthat the scorers score leg-byes whenthey are run (with the knowledge and consent of the umpires ) to the credit of the in side , though the law gives them no authority for doing so. But, perhaps , this is the most loosely -constructed law of the whole forty -seven ; and even here the ana- logy betweenleg -byes and the other extras leaves no reasonable doubt as to its meaning, or as to the practical propriety of the present custom of running and scoring both byes and leg-byes.