James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

18 i f there exists in the minds of some, as they aver, doubt and uncertainty, these la tter w i l l surely not be diminished. So long as umpires allow any sort o f bow ling wh ich to the mind o f the m a jority is unfair, so lono- w i l l the doubtful action or “ th row in g ” d e livery be continued. I t is said, again, that umpires do not l ik e to “ no b a l l ” a brother professional, as it would be injurious to his career; but i t should be also remembered tha t by not “ no-balling ” A , who is supposed to be with a bent arm and unfair, they are also tak ing the bread out o f the mouth of B, who is a fast, but perfectly fa ir, bowder, and who would, and should in rea lity , be p lay ing in place of A. Depend upon i t then, the umpire who is placed in his position to be the judge o f fa ir or unfair play is the proper man to tackle in the first instance. W e must get umpires who w i l l do the ir duty w ithout fear, and act up to their opinions; they w ill be supported by general opinion, and though they may have at first some l it t le disagreeables to encounter, those w i l l shortly disappear, and we shall v e ry soon get rid o f any “ th row ing ,” and the old legitimate bow ling w i l l reign again. L e t then the old L aw X . sfand as it now is, and i f the M.C.C. w i l l make the fo llow in g , or something similar, their rules, and in v ite the co-operation of all the Counties, these rules w ill be taken up and obeyed by a ll true lovers of c r ick e t :— “ Unless umpires ‘ no b a l l ’ any bow ler whose d e livery they consider to be unfair, they w i l l no longer be employed in first-class matches. A ll cases of what is considered neglect of duty on the part o f an umpire to be reported to the Committee o f the M.C.C., who shall have the power o f suspending the umpire for such time as they think fit. I f a bow ler has been ‘ no balled ’ once for unfair bowling, he shall, i f he be at any time ‘ no balled ’ a second time, be liab le to be debarred from bow ling in any first-class match "whatever.” I I . m B y H on . It. H. L Y T T E L T O N . The question of fa ir and unfair bow ling is of so important a nature, touching the very vitals of cricket, that a few remarks on i t here may not be out of place. I t is w e ll known that the worst offender amongst the Counties in the matter of “ throw ing ” is Lancashire, and it can be laid down as an absolute truth that no one can know or understand the elements of cricket and ye t conscientiously maintain that N ash and C rossland are perfectly fa ir bowlers. As far as first-class cricket is concerned, these are almost the on ly offenders, unless i t be true that H arr ison , of Yorkshire, has already exhibited a tendency in that direction. I t may be useful in discussing future steps to be taken, to remember what has hitherto been done on this question. The M.C.C. authorities thought, natui'ally, that to secure permanent employment for umpires, and to place them under their own control, and not subject to the caprice o f separate counties, would ensure unbiassed and accurate t