James Lillywhiite's Cricketers' Annual 1874

1 9 a professional , but a manof no standing and no great experience , unhesitatingly gave the batsman " not out," on the ground that the bail , " to be considered off," as he said , must come to earth (unless , indeed, it were caught by one of the out side , or stuck on the batsman's person) before the batsman could be considered out. Here, I think, he was wrong. If the bail has once been pal- pably off, the conditions contemplated in LawX V. seemed to m e to be fulfilled , whether it gets back again or not ; and yet I believe that umpires in general take the opposite view . Indeed , I have even heard it urged that a bail may slip down between the stumps after the ball has struck them, and may stick there , and that , under such circumstances , the batsman is " not out ;" but I really cannot see any ground for such a direct contradiction of the law a sthis. 10.19 Another case , arising out of LawXVIII. From LawX X I X. it is easy to drawthe inference that the ball , dead whensettled in the bowler's hand, comes into play again " whenthe bowler is about to deliver it ." I take this to mean whenhe begins his start , ball in hand, towards the wicket . Now, suppose that the batsmanknocks off his own bails before the ball is delivered . W emayput aside any question of his doing so to avoid being bowled, for a manwhoplayed such a trick would lose the rest of his cricket ; and suppose that he did it by accident as he went through his preliminary movements. " Out," I should say, for he, like the bowler , means play at the time, and knows it . Law XVIII, says that he is out " if, in striking at the ball , he hits down his wicket ." Now, is he striking at the ball , in the true sense of the law, while he is manœuvring and getting up his swing before the ball leaves the bowler's hand ? Opinions may fairly differ on such a point ; but I, as umpire , should straightway give himout, right or wrong. The ball is in play, and the encounter has begun, to m ymind. L a wX V I. gives the batsman as caught out " if the ball from the stroke of the bat, &c. , is held before it touched the ground." Whatdoes the " ground" meanas used in this law ? Some pundits urge that it comprises all buildings , tents , walls , trees , &c. If it merely means the soil of the cricket -ground, then a catch off a wall , or a tree , or a tent , or a bystander , or the umpire, is " out ;" and, supposing the ball to be hit, say through one of the tavern windows at Lord's , or any similar place , and picked up five minutes afterwards by one of the field while on the floor of the room where it landed, the batsman should be " out," and the fieldsman credited with the catch , which is against all common sense . Lawrence , of Dublin , says , that the M.C.C. once upheld a decision by which a batsman was given " out " when the ball had hit the umpire's head before it was caught, which seems hard, as the catch would pro- bably not have come to hand but for the interposition of the umpire. These difficulties might be easily set at rest by the addition of a few words to the law. B y-the-bye, how about a catch off the person of a substitute running for oneof thebatsmen? H eis there for the convenience and benefit of the in side , and I think they should stand all risks arising from his presence ; so I should be inclined to consider a cannon off him as a valid catch , but this is a matter of sentiment rather than of judgment . Next take the latter part of Law XXIX., which enacts that the bowler may put out the batsman at his (the bowler's ) wicket if he leaves his ground . About this there is no question . Butif, in trying to put the batsman out, the bowler throws the ball at the wicket and misses it, and if the batsmen run for what, tn default of a better term , I maycall the " overthrow ," howdo you score the