James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

17 r flotts mt Unfair i . B y Y . E. W A L K E R . V AR IOUS , A N D I N C E R T A IN IN STANCE S ABSURD , as have been some of the suggestions as to the alteration of L aw X., and the unfair bowling or “ throw ing” question, it does not appear to the writer, whilst agreeing with a good deal that has been written, that the real remedy has been adopted by anyone; probably the writers have scarcely liked to suggest such stringent measures; but if this so-called “ th row in g ” or unfair bowling is to be stopped, the remedy must be strong, as at present we see no notice taken of it, whilst many, rightly or wrongly, are crying out loudly against several bowlers. A l l true cricketers desire to see nothing but fair and legitimate bowling; some of us may not have such strong opinions as others as to the fairness or otherwise of certain deliveries, but it cannot be denied that the tendency to a “ th row ” has been much on the increase of late, and the evil must be wiped out at once, or it w ill ruin the game— if we wish cricket still to be looked upon as the game of Englishmen. What, then, is to be done for a remedy ? To give both umpires the power of calling “ no ba ll ” has been favoured by many, and this seems in some degree plausible, since umpires themselves aver that it is not always possible, considering their position at the bowler’s wicket, and having also to watch the foot of the bowler, to see the bowler’s arm at the moment of delivery. This might answer in the best of matches with the best of umpires, but surely it might give rise in many cases to unseemly disputes, especially in the event of close contests. To “ no ball ” any fast bowler, whose arm is bent at the time of delivery, has been suggested by a well-known member of a great cricketing fam ily : in this case again there is a loop-hole for the umpire; he either cannot see, or he is unable to say whether the bowler is a fast bowler or not, for be it observed the gentleman who ably advocates this would not have a slow bowler thus “ no balled.” As a matter of fact, there are fast bowlers who bowl perfectly fairly with a bent arm, and whose delivery has not been questioned. There are many slow bowlers who bowl w ith bent arms, and in one case a well-known slow bowler who as many think, throws, has decidedly rather a lound or straight arm delivery. *So much has been written about bent aims, “ crooked elbows,” “ turned wrists,” and other eccentricities of bowlers, without anyone absolutely agreeing with another as to what constitutes a fair delivery or otherwise, that it is useless to argue the case further, believing, as we do, that it is next to impossible to deline a thiow. A ll these proposed alterations and definitions of a throw we therefore take it would puzzle still more than now the unfoitunate mnpiie j for, 2