James Lillywhiite's Cricketers' Annual 1874

1 8 Such andsimilar are the weakpoints in which the letter of the law is evaded and sat upon by mutual consent of all cricketers , for the better prosecution of the game according to the spirit of the law. But the cases are far from few in which it seems to be almost impossible to tell what we ought to do. Take, for instance , such a case as actually arose only last year (1873) in the Surrey and Gloucester match at Clifton . Mr. W. G. Grace had made a hit, and as the ball was returned by the fieldsman it somehow hit him, and b y the purest accident ran up into the bosom of his shirt . Now, keeping in view LawXXIII., which gives him " out " if he " touch or take upthe ball while in play unless at the request of the opposite party," what on earth was heto do? The ball was still in play, it would seem, inasmuch as it was not, according to the requirements of Law X X I X. , dead, as being finally settled in thewicket-keeper's or bowler's hands, and he clearly could not touch it with his without risking his wicket . So he went on running a couple more runs, though pathetically begged by Jupp to " bring it out," which he could then do without risk as Jupp's was a " request of the opposite party ." So, by consent , the ball was taken out, and, by consent also , the runs made after this odd accident were disallowed . But why? He was at liberty to run " as many runs as he can get," as the law says , until the ball was dead, and it was no fault of his that the ball was inside his shirt . Hedid not put it there , andb y law he could not, proprio motu, take it out. If the other side declined to ask him to take it out, and it did not shake out of itself , I do not see w h y, according to strict law, he should not run five hundred ; nor do I see that a request from the other side in any legal wayobliges himto comply with it. Asa matter of courtesy he would do so, no doubt, but I knowno means of enforcing the request short of a personal assault , which would bring the aggressor or aggressors under the notice of laws more important than even those of cricket , and sometimes quite as hard to understand . The same sort of case arose , I think , at Harrowtwenty odd years back. The ball was hit into a dirty horse -pond, poached up into deep m u dfor yards round the water , and none of the field would go in. They called " lost ball " lustily , but the umpiredid not consider that a ball floating lazily in three inches of water at six yards off to be lost , and before it was rescued nearly thirty runs were run, 1 and scored . Again , I remember a case where one side of a cricket -ground was boundedby a brick wall , with bottle -glass mortared into it at top. A leg -ball landed at its first bound on a peculiarly aggressive fragment of very strong glass , impaled itself for an inch or so, and there stuck , some nine feet from the ground , quite out of the reach of the boys who were playing , though a man standing on the back of another (after taking off his spiked shoes , which would interfere with the comfort and stability of the man beneath ) could , perhaps , have reached it . Could a ball be fairly considered " lost " under such circum- stances ? If I were the umpire I should say, " Yes." Cricketers cannot reasonably be expected to climb a wall like flies , nor to walk a foot deep into the m u d round a horse -pond in pursuance of an amusement . The law does not, and cannot, contemplate and provide against such extreme cases . Case arising out of Law XV. If the bowler bowls aball which hits astump and thebail is visibly knocked free and separate from the stump, but falls back into its place , how then ? The case is not very rare , and, indeed , I have heard of one where the bail actually turned round end for end in the air and fell back into position , lying truly and evenly in the notches at the end of the stumps, whichmusthave been pushed a little apart to allow it to do so. T h eumpire,