James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

A GOOD-NATUREDG R O W L. whenthe captain of a side was blamed by some for taking full advantage of the enactment only allowing ten minutes between the innings , on the score that on no groundw a sit the customto expendless thana quarterof a nhour over the interval . Manyother instances could be given of the way in whichlaws are systematically infringed or tacitly ignored , and it will in no way alter the facts to plead that the infringements are of no vital importance or that they have the sanction of general usage. But it is not with the questions of comparative unimportance that I wish to deal . It is in the failure of the authorities to carry out the provisions laid downto meet certain material issues that there is ground for complaint . The subject of what is fair and unfair bowling has always proved a contention , butduringthe last few years there have been good reasons for the very general feeling that the penalties for unfair deliveries have not been applied . Whatsays Rule X.: Theball must be bowled. If thrown or jerked the umpire shall call a " no ball ." Of late this rule has been , beyond a doubt , in some conspicuous instances deliberately broken . I could point to two cricketers , both of themidentified with Yorkshire , whodistinctly exposed themselves to the penalty for throwing , with an umpire resolute enough to do his duty. The unpopularity of the Australian players just at the time whenthey protested against what they considered to be a violation of Rule X. caused their objection at Scarborough to be treated perhaps more lightly than it deserved , but as a matter of fact , though exception might of course be taken to their procedure in disputing , or refusing to recognise the decision of the umpires, they were only giving open expression to the sentiments of manyEnglish players who were present . It is difficult of course to characterise any bowler as addicted to continuous throwing. B u tstill there are a select few of w h o mit is quite safe to say they unhesitatingly throw one ball every over, if not more. Icould nameone conspicuous instance last summerof a Northern professional , more than ordinarily successful towards the close of the season , with w h o mevery now and then there wasthe conclusive and damningevidence of the bent elbow which proves the throw. That the offenders have all come under the direct notice of the committeeof the M.C.C. I do not for one m o m e n tassert . would only urge that to m y own certain knowledge in some cases the umpires have been satisfied of the illegality of some of the bowling onwhich they ought to have expressed an adverse verdict . A n old and experienced player who stood in an important match last summerdid not hesitate to avow his objection to " no ball " a bowler whose offence he admitted, on more than one ground. His strongest plea was that the same bowler had taken part in several other matches of equal importance, and that in no case had there been open expression of disapproval from the " sole judges of fair and unfair play." For the shortcomings or inde- cision of umpires the M.C.C. can of course hardly be held accountable , but I would plead that they are indirectly responsible for the maintenance of the very improper system of umpiring nowin vogue. That there is need for a radical change in the present method of appointing umpires I think all who see muchof the internal working of Cricket will agree . Fromwhat I have already said about the difficulty of comprehendingthe rules of the gameit wouldseem doubly necessary that those who are entrusted with the dutyof interpreting themshould be menof at least average intelligence , capable of an equitable as well as commonsense decision . This even n o wis the moreessential when one takes into consideration the power I