PUZZLES FOR UMPIRES

Northern Advocate, 17 December 1932, Page 12

PUZZLES FOR UMPIRES

LAWS DIFFICULT TO DEFINE,

DECISIONS IN UNUSUAL CASES.

The rules of cricket are full of surprises (writes A. M. Crawley, noted amateur player for Kent). How many people Avould have knoAvn that Avhen T. W. Goddard, of Gloucestershire, stopped a ball recently from A. Melville, of Sussex, Avith his cap, it meant live runs to Melville? The umpire did, which settled the question, presumably to the satisfaction of Melville.

But umpires have not always found it so easy to give decisions in cricket, and players have not: always been satisfied.

One splendid instance is worth repeating. The occasion was a, match between Oxford and Surrey at the Oval, in 192-i I think, and T. B. Bailees and li. C. Eobertson-Glasgow wore batting for Oxford. EobertsonGlasgow hit the ball to a fieldsman and both began to run. As they met half-way down the wicket Bailees changed his mind, stopped, turned round, and ran back to his own crease, accompanied by EobertsonGlasgow. While they were doing this ■ tho fieldsman had got excited and overthrown the ball. Both batsmen thereupon turned round and ran down the wicket together to Eobertson-Glas-gow’s end, arriving neck and neck. Tho spectators, who had had a dull day’s cricket, were delirious with excitement by now, and when for the second time the fieldsmen made a muddle, and both batsmen turned together again and raced down the wicket, they stood up and roared. As a reporter told the story, ‘‘ on the last lap the Old Carthusian outstayed the Old Wykehamist and won by a short head” and the empty wicket was at last put down.

Who was out? And how many rune were scored? No one was sure' whether the batsmen had crossed on the first run, and Pobertson-Glasgow had crossed the wicket three times and Kaikes twice.

Bailees settled the question by walking out, and the umpires were relieved their dilemma. But the story goes that they both admitted that they would not have known what to say; and I can find no record of what the scorer’s decision was.

Perhaps the most difficult thing of all in cricket is to decide when the ball is "dead.” The rule says "when it finally comes to rest" in either the bowler’s or the wicketkeeper’s hands. But who is to define what "finally" means? If a fieldsman throws it back to the bowler, the bowler can still run a man out if he has not returned to his crease, or for that matter if he moves out of it, so can the ■wicketkeeper. But in practice this rule is governed by an unwritten law.

I remember one occasion when N, M. Pord, batting at Harrow, broke this law and was run out, to his extreme indignation. He had hit a bail to cover point where K, Holdsworth duly fielded it—and called "No," while standing about a yard in front of his crease. Thinking the ball "dead," as neither batsman was attempting a run, Pord did not bother to put his bat down behind the crease again, but walked straight out to pat the pitch.

Hohksworth held the ball for a minute or two while the whole field watched Ford dealing- death to a plantin, and thou slowly rolled it in to the wicketkeeper who broke the wicket lor .Ford to ho given "out.” Annoymg, but quite right. A more common and even more annoying way of being given out is to be caught oil’ the umpire. This happens quite frequently in all sorts of cricket. As the rule briefly states: ‘‘the umpire is not a boundary,” and the ball is therefore not dead when it hits him. .11 1m was a boundary lie would be the immediate target of every hard-hitting batsman, and an umpire ’<s job would be about as enviable as a parachutist’s.

Sometimes a batsman is ran out by (lie bowler before lie lias begun to run. Thin is a favourite trick of G. G. Macaulay’s. When the ball is hit back at him hard ho picks it up and nurls it at Hie balnman’s wicket beI are the latter has recovered from his

stroke. If he.happens to bo out of his crease lie is, of course, ‘‘out.’* C. K. Hill-Wood, the Oxford-Derbyshire player, once suffered this indignity and lias never forgotten it. And perhaps the most surprising, but not the least encouraging rule of all is to be found in the “instructions to Umpnres"—which says “no umpire is - allowed to bet.’ ’ We may rest assured, then, that the pebbles and pennies which they carry in their pockets are not used for playing shove halfpenny, or marbles, but are kept solely for counting the balls in an over.