Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 27 - CHI-ELD.pdf/311

 C R I C K E T The present rules differ in many respects from those in use in the middle of the last century. The trend of cricket legislation has been in three directions : (1) to Laws ’ put county qualification on a more equitable basis; (2) to enforce fair bowling ; and (3) to increase the chances of bringing matches definitely to a conclusion. (1) The question of county qualification has been a matter of constant friction. The importations of Mr J. J. Ferris to Gloucestershire, and of Albert Trott and Eoche to Middlesex, are examples of men qualifying from Australia. Mr F. K. Spofforth, of New South Wales, has played for Derbyshire, for which county the West Indian Mr C. A. Olivierre has qualified, whilst Mr G. C. B. Llewellyn and Mr C. O. H. Sewell, of the Cape, have played respectively for Hants and Gloucestershire. Some wealthy counties practically purchased skilled professionals born outside their boundaries, and county teams have been seen in which only two members on the side were actually qualified by birth. The rules had, however, stood unchanged since 1873, except for the addition in 1888 that a man can play for his old county during the two years that he is qualifying for another, until the new code came into operation in 1900. (2) Unfair bowling has been prevented so far as possible, but the umpires have often failed to agree in penalizing bowlers who were widely accused of throwing. The chief discussion arose over the delivery of Crossland, and after Lord Harris had openly made himself the spokesman of the malcontents an unfortunate difference arose between Notts and Lancashire. Just as the question of Crossland’s action threatened to cause a serious schism, it was discovered that he had lost his residential qualification, so the matter terminated through a side issue, and Crossland was never no-balled by any umpire. There are six prominent instances of no-balling for throwing in first-class matches, the most sensational being those of Mr E. Jones in Australia, Mr C. B. Fry, Mold, and Tyler, the umpire in each case being James Phillips ; in the two last-named cases even when the bowler was not at his end and he was standing at square-leg. Hopkins of Warwickshire was no-balled by Titchmarsh in 1898, and Captain Bradford of Hampshire by three umpires in 1899. The delivery of several great bowlers has been impeached, and Mr F. E. Spofforth in a letter to a sporting paper in January 1897 stigmatized both Mr T. E. M'Kibbin and Peel. The action of Mr M. A. Noble in the Australian team of 1899, of Mr W. C. Hedley, Mr W. F. Forbes, and Watson, all aroused marked difference of opinion. (3) The alteration of the follow-on rule and the legislation of the right of declaring an innings closed were made in consequence of two remarkable exhibitions in the university matches of 1893 and 1895, whilst in other cases batsmen had obviously knocked down their wickets. The result in minor matches has not been conducive to the popularity of the game, for instances have often been given of cricketers not getting an innings in several successive games; but in first-class fixtures Dr W. G. Grace is the only captain who has yet applied the closure and lost the game. The enormously increasing percentage of drawn games, now annually over 63 per cent., is attributed to the excellence of cricket pitches; and suggestions for heightening and broadening the wicket, reducing the size of the bat, deciding unfinished fixtures on the first innings, and giving the losers of the toss the option to bat first in the return match, have been widely discussed and thus far negatived. The Committee of M.C.C., in May 1900, tried the experiment of the abolition of boundaries by the erection of a netting round the ground. Several alterations were effected in the complicated system of scoring thus introduced, but the entire

277

attempt was pronounced a complete failure and soon abandoned. The law of leg-before-wicket has also been much discussed, owing to the general objection to the growing habit of deliberately putting the body or legs in front of a breaking ball instead of playing it with the bat. To Gunn and Shrewsbury belongs the reputation of first regularly practising and perfecting a form of legitimate cricket absolutely at variance with the spirit of the game, and their example has been widely followed, to the detriment of the attractiveness of batting. In 1884 Lord Harris proposed that the side losing the toss in the first match should have the option of choice of innings in the return engagement 5 but this was never tried. In the previous year he had commented on the prevalence of illegal-sized bats, and in 1884 nearly all the prominent cricketers appeared with bats which had been shaven down to the proper width. Lord Harris, 7th December 1886, proposed the establishment of a cricket council, which was organized 12 th June 1887, a date practically coinciding with Crlcket the centenary of the M.C.C. It was expressly council. stated that the new body should have no power over the laws of the game, but be competent to amend the rules of county cricket qualification, whilst at the meeting in December 1887 a discussion was raised on the leg-before-wicket question and on the reduction of scoring. In December 1889 Lord Cobham became chairman, on the appointment of Lord Harris to be governor of Bombay. On 11th August 1890, at the Oval, with Mr J. Shuter in the chair, the council received the report of the committee appointed to draw up a classification of counties. The scheme advocated that the shires should be divided into three sections, with the suggestion that the lowest county in the first and the highest in the second should, in the following season, play home-and-home matches, the winner to be qualified for inclusion in the premier body. On 25th October the representatives of the second-class counties held a meeting protesting against the proposed new legislation, Dr Eussell Bencraft being in the chair. At the meeting of the cricket council on 8th December 1890, with Mr M. J. Ellison presiding, on the motion that the whole question of classification be discussed, Mr A. J. Webbe proposed as an amendment that the meeting be suspended sine die, which was carried by the chairman’s casting vote, thus putting an abrupt and unexpected termination to the existence of this abortive assembly. The classification of counties was introduced by Mr Ellison at the meeting of the county secretaries December 1893, for the express purpose “of doing away with that very invidious distinction which had existed for some years and abolishing that sbipm hated word ‘ championship,’ which the whole cricket world would be glad to get rid of.” This opinion was proved to be erroneous. A special meeting was called for 1st May 1894, when an amendment was carried requesting the Committee of M.C.C. to consider and advise on the whole subject. The captains of the then first-class counties—Lord Hawke (Yorkshire), Dr W. G. Grace (Gloucestershire), Messrs J. Shuter (Surrey), S. M. J. Woods (Somersetshire), J. A. Dixon (Notts), F. Marchant (Kent), A. J. Webbe (Middlesex), W. L. Murdoch (Sussex), and A. N. Hornby (Lancashire)—sent in a resolution that the fixtures of Derbyshire, Essex, Leicestershire, and Warwickshire be regarded as first-class. This was ratified by the Committee of the M.C.C., who also included Hampshire in the following year. The consolidation of county cricket has since caused the line of demarcation to be very marked, but Worcestershire was elevated in 1899. The earliest mention of a county championship had been in 1870. For a long time con-