13th September.
Law 24, as laid dawn by the Moses of our Cricket Dispensation, seems so plain that even the mer-st tyro at the game need not make any mistake in applying it. Here it is:—"he striker is out if with part of his person he stops the ball which in the opinion of the Umpire at the bowler's wicket, shall have been pitched in a straight line from it to the striker's wicket and would have hit it -—Leg before wicket."
The looseness of the composition here need not affect the manner in which the "law" is to be construed. The two "its" refer to the bowler's and striker's wickets respectively be~ tween which the ball must have pitched. This is the first mental point to be noted. ball must pitch so as to touch or fall upon a narrow strip of geonnd twenty-two yards long leg as to have gone wide of the stumps.
This question of " break " brings us to the complications of the question. In the early days of cricket, "break" was as unknown as were the scientific curves now so common to piciiing in baseball. There was no necessity therefore to bother one's head very much about niceties which are matiers of every Saturday experience now. Let us examine a ase or two to see how varying stances might be adjudged.
Take a bowler of Mr. Potter's style for example, and let him bow! a good length ball which pitches on a line joining the two middle stumps. The ball is seen to swerve a little to leg just enough to make the batsman miss it, ard receive it on his pad. Ts he out? That is a matter for the umpire to decide in the twinkling of an eye, and he does so by making up his mind whether or no the "break" was sufficient to carry the ball clear of the wicket had the leg not been there, Now, in the next over, let us suppose, our Lunicr tries his little game on again, this time pitching up the ball so far that in playing well forward to it the striker receives it on his toe. This time he is out, " without benefit of clergy." The ball might have broken away as the other did, but the umpire takes no note of might-have-beens.
Once more, imagine a_ ball sent. down so that the batsman is tempted to orerreach himself in playing for:
have seen such cases, A stright ball again hits him on the toe before it has had any chance break away ath, but immediately eight inches wide. s|hehind the toc is the bat.
Is the in' twenty-two yards pretty narrow line, and the only chance an umpire has of judging accurately whether or no the ball has actually dropped within its confines is to stand exactly behind the bowler's wicket and not half-a-yard to one side as he sometimes does. Should it happen that he ws asked to stand a little wide by the batsman because of the darkness of his (the umpire's) attire, the right thing to do isto don the umpire's coat and not stand where he cannot hope to give correct decisions. If on the other hand the bowler after delivering the ball runs between the umpire and the opposite wicket as is frequently the case, the umpire's duty is to stand fast, to warn tie bowler, and if appeals are made when the bowler's body is m the way, to vive the bat-man "not out" whatever has happened.
Bui it is not enough thet the bat should have pitched on the very contracted line from wicket to The umpire must be so istled that! striker out? Some men once say, " Yes, undoubtedly." They go on the rule that if the ball touch the person before it touches the bat, the striker is out. But hard and fast rules are not encouraged by the spirit of good.cricket. The law is worded loosely that the proverbial coach and horses might be driven through it with ease, and such a case as I have adduced ought to be decided on the matter of fact. Would the ball "ju the opinion of the umpire ""—that is the point—have hit the wicket had the toe not been there? By hypothesis as Euclid would say it, would not. Therefore in that case the man is not out, though he would probably have had short shrift from most amateur umpires, and we doubt not from some professionals.
'A very unn-ces-ary disenss'on sometimes entered i to #8 to wi Lhe i ra basman to b te a bowler who Miner devs for sample. Of cour-e it is. A samp's or two will settle when it is and it would have struck the wicket, that is to say that it would not have broken away so far "to the off or the when not possible:
Milner bowls as clo-e to the i_turn crease as the law allows and some-he is right-hard: d and bowls "over" the wicket, a ball. from, him which pitches straight. between wicket and wicket must "come in" or it could not do tke desired damage. Let, us imagine such a one following some which have gone away to leg. The striker steps in front to send this also in the same direction, misses, and is unmistakeably 1. But the ball must have shown that it was " coming Now take a similar case to one previously considered, From his ordinary delivery point Milner sends down a ball so far up that it drops right on the batsman's foot exactl in line between the wickets. " How's that?" "Not out." In the ordinary course of things the ball would have gone clear of the wicket to leg, "break" not being taken into consideration because it had no chance to show itself. A diagram would prove this to the most unconvinced questioner.
We have written this much in order first to show that the umpire's duty is not so' delightfully simple as might be Thought, and second because in this.b.w, matter in particular, there is no doubt that very outrageous decisions are sometimes given hero as elsewhere.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.