James Lillywhte's Cricketers' Annual 1884

3 0 L I L L YW H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S ' A N N U A L . hewasbyno means so difficult as of old. Mr. C. T. Studd bowled generally with success , but amateur bowling has rarely been weaker than it was last year, and there does not appear to be any hope of any immediate improvement , though Mr. S. Christopherson's successful débût for Kent warrants the belief that he mayhelp to remedy the great lack of good fast bowling among the amateurs of to day. Amongthe professionals not previously mentioned, Barratt , Woof, Crossland , Wootton, Emmett, Bates , Ulyett, Burton, Barnes, Flowers , Watter, Wright, the two Hides, and Juniper were the most effective . Theonly young professional bowler of any great promise introduced last year wasHarrison, the Yorkshire colt , and he fairly wonfor himself , in his first year of good cricket , a position as the best fast bowler of the day. n e s s. Anotice of the past season wouldbe imperfect withoutmentionof several subjects which gave rise to considerable discussion and some little unpleasant- Thenewaddition to the laws introduced by M.C.C. in conformity with the unanimous wish of the principal Counties , allowing the wicket to be rolled on the second and third mornings of a match has, as was only to be expected , given univeral satisfaction . The new system of appointing umpires , so as to prevent anyone standing in a matchin which his ownCounty is engaged, has, o n the whole, been successful ; though the scheme has not been, perhaps , worked so as to carry out the full intentions of its promoters . It is a pity that the other reform , that providing the penalty of a no-ball in the case of any bowler whose action was even open to suspicion , had not a fair trial . The Committee of the Marylebone Club can not be blamed for the disinclination , shown by umpires generally , to enforce their specific instructions . Considerable ill -feeling was engendered last season , and is still likely to be evinced in the event of certain deliveries continuing to pass unchallenged . Werethere any reasonable doubts in the minds of umpires as to the fairness or unfairness of the action of certain bowlers , who are regarded as offenders in this respect , there might be some excuse for their refusal to carry out their instructions to the extent of no-balling . There was really ,though , no plea that the deliveries of those bowlers were above suspicion . The absence of any enforcement of the penalties was simply due to the fact that the umpires were afraid to prosecute offenders with the full rigour of the laws. The irresolution of the officials appointed to enforce the rules has paralysed the action of the lawmakers, and it is open to doubt whether any remedial legislation will have the required effect until a better and more independent class of umpires be procured . Lord Harris has given notice that at the next general meeting of the Marylebone Club, he will move that an addition be madeto LawTen, enforcing an umpire, if he is not of opinion that a bowler's delivery is absolutely fair , to call no-ball . If umpires were able to satisfy themselves , as they evidently were last season , that their duty to their employers is fulfilled bya tacit refusal to carry out the full letter of their instructions , it is to be feared that Lord Harris's proposal will have very little . iffany , better result . In reality , it was a disinclination of umpires to court notoriety and risk a certain amountof disfavour by taking definite action to the extent of no-balling a bowler , rather than anydoubts about the proper course to pursue according to the instructions given them, that prevented the disqualification last year of more than one bowler as open to suspicion ; and, as far as we can see, no instructions , however clear , would induce umpires , as at present selected , to have the courage of their opinions . It will be generally admitted that the prevalence of " throwing " is having a very prejudicial effect on legitimate bowling , andit has become a matter of serious momentfor the County Clubs to unite with a view to the thorough enforce- mentof the spirit of the new rule laid down last year by the M.C.C. to penalise anyone whose delivery is open to suspicion . Another abuse, the prevalence of bats of illegal size , will , it is also to be hoped, be checked before the commencementof another cricket year. Another important event of last season was the issue of the draft code of rules as revised by the Committee of the Marylebone Club. The necessity of