James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

6 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. they wield , for there is one rule which is not sufficiently often brought to bear-viz ., the " umpires shall be sole judges of fair and unfair play ." Werethis rule morerelied on by umpires there would be fewer of the cases of sharp practice which so often mar the enjoyment of a match . The very fact of umpires having so muchpower for good or evil is a strong argument in favour of their being m e n knownin the cricketing world as well for their knowledgeof the gameas strict honesty. Suchwould appear to be the essentials of an umpire in the abstract , but what is really the case in practice ? It would seem absurd to place m e nin the field to adjudicate on the most difficult points of a most difficult gamewho are able neither to read or write . To depute the interpretation of the laws of Cricket to those whoonly knowthembyinstinct , or from a certain amount of knowledgederived from participation in the game, would appear to be a most improper as well as injudicious act, and yet such is the common practice. A n dit is the M.C.C. which sets the example of wrong-doing. A most distinguished cricketer remarked in m y hearing last summer, " A m a nhas only to be a ground bowler at Lord's for a week, and he is competent to stand umpire in any match. " His comment, too, though severe , was after all not so very unfair . The idea of the M.C.C. to give every possible oppor- tunity of earning moneyto those w h o mthey employ is laudable enough. Let it be understood that I a mnot in any wayreflecting on the ability or character of the membersof the ground staff at Lord's . O n the contrary , I fully recognise and appreciate the merits of the most of them as cricketers , and their respectability as m e n. It is only whenthey are elevated to posi- tions for which someare unfitted that I take exception to them, and then only as part of a system for which they are not responsible . It is strange that neither M.C.C. nor the Counties seem as yet to have recognised the importance of this umpire question . It will not be too muchto say that of late , not only at Lord's , but also at the Oval, and in manyCounty matches, the umpiring has not been satis- factory . O nthe one handI could point out morethan one umpire whose decisions have been generally anything but palatable ; on the other it wouldbe easy to name someunfit by physical infirmities fromgiving the fullest attention necessary to the game. The great increase in popularity of County Cricket of late years necessitates an alteration in the accepted methodof umpiring. As a matter of fact the umpire plays a very influential part in every game; indeed he is often the most important factor in a match. It is essential therefore that there should be no reason of any kind for doubting his capabilities for the post or for challenging his perfect impartiality . A n dhowto ensure these laudable objects ? First , I would suggest that the M.C.C. should be invited to give certificates of competencyto those professional cricketers whoon examina- tion were found to be thoroughly conversant with the rules and practice of the game. These certificates could be granted permanently, or might be re- newable every year if it were considered advisable to establish a licensing system after the form introduced by the Jockey Club for licensing jockeys . Butin no case should one be allowed to stand in any important matchunless possessed of the M.C.C. certificate . And secondly and lastly , it might be or- dainedthat no one should be allowed to stand in any matchin whichhis o w n county was engaged. I a mthoroughly aware that objections maybe taken to the propositions I have made. It will no doubt be urged that mylast pro-