James Lillywhiite's Cricketers' Annual 1874

2 0 run ? Evidently it belongs to neither batsman, and so must be an extra , that is to say, either a wide, bye, or no-ball . N o w, it is essentially im- possible that it can be a " wide ball " (the term used in the laws ), because , being a throw, it is not a ball at all . Therefore , it is either a no-ball or a bye. There is something to be said for both sides . It is a contin- gency that occurred when the bowler had begun the act of bowling , and it certainly has the principal element of a no -ball about it in the fact that it is not a fair ball . But it seems to me that a no -ball must always be a ball passing from wicket to wicket , but disqualified by reason of being thrown, or jerked , or delivered by a bowler who is in a wrong place . And if this is the case , by a sort of Euclidian or exhaustive process which I cannot call satisfactory , I should class it among the byes , in spite of the odd fact stated above, that byes are not specifically mentioned in the laws at all . It is clearly something that ought to be scored , and must be scored , and if I were umpire a bye it should be, though only as a sort of last resource . The byes should be used. as a kind of " refuge for the destitute and homeless ." Next and last --for these notes are getting lengthy -if the bowler , after starting to bowl and so putting the ball into play again , sees the batsman to whomhe is about to bowl out of his ground , and throws down his wicket while he is well away from it, what then ? This is a point of singular delicacy . It maybe argued that the bowler must come to the crease to bowl , and that the batsman has no need to be in his ground at his wicket till the ball , bowled in the ordinary way, gets there . If this be so, the question is at an end, for nothing would happen at all except that a " no-ball " would be called by an efficient umpire. But m y own belief is that, from the time " play" recom- mences, both sides are bound to be at " attention ;" and I see no strong reason to doubt that the bowler may" go off at half -cock ," as the saying is, before hecomes to the bowling crease if he so pleases . Law IX. says that he " shall deliver the ball with one foot on the ground behind the bowling crease ," but it says nothing about the other ; and the reasonable inference seems to be that it means himto have one foot , at least , and both if he pleases , behind the crease . Atall events , one eminent bowler habitually bowled in such afashion for his whole career without remonstrance , and the same plan has also been used before now for the express purpose of embarrassing a leisurely batsman ; a trick which is hardly honourable , whether fair or not. If it is fair , and I feel no considerable doubt that it is, he would be justified in bowling downthe opposite wicket as soon as he pleased after he had started to bowl. But he has thrown it down instead , and how does that affect the case ? So far as I know there is no penalty whatever for throwing instead of bowling , or for any other illegitimate act of bowling , except that the ball becomes a " no-ball ". Let us consider it as a no-ball , and see where that theory takes us. Abatsman cannot bebowled by a no-ball ; indeed , cannot be put out " except by running out," as Law XIII . says , and is therefore exempt from any risk of stumping , and he m a yaccordingly draw in to hit a no-ball with perfect impunity. N o w, does the fact of his being far out of his ground justify an umpire in considering him as "run out ? " Andif the throw is a no-ball , is the no -ball to count before the run- out ? I should think it did, as a no-ball occurs at the momentthe ball leaves the bowler's hand. The point would be important if the in side only wanted one or two runs to win. If I were umpire I should be inclined to decide according to whether the batsman was trying to get any illicit advantage ; was , in fact , what is called " kidding ," or not. If I thought he was I should give