CURIOSITIES OF CRICKET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14133, 7 August 1909, Page 5 (Supplement)

CURIOSITIES OF CRICKET.

In the July Pall Mall Magazine, Mr. P. F. Warner tells some interesting cricket stories. In the Rugby and Marlborough match of 1886 a, singular incident occurred. When Kitcat, the Marlborough captain, was disposed of, it was discovered that ( Bengough, the Rugby captain, had, by some oversight, been allowed to go on "twice at each end— those days the bowler might- not change ends more than twice in the same innings, nor bowl more than two overs in succession —and in his first over from the pavilion end (the second time he had been on at that end) he got Kitcat caught at cover-point. A long discussion ensued; but it was decided by the umpires, T. Mycroft and Wheeler, that Kitcat, having been fairly caught, could not go in again. As a result, however, on the objection of Kitcat, Bengough was not allowed to bowl another ball in the innings after he had completed his over. Of course, it was a clear oversight on the part of the umpires (and Bengough) that Bengough went on at the wrong end, and their decision that Kitcat was fairly out was generally approved. But the heavy penalty inflicted on Bengough seems quite illogical, for he was made to suffer for lack of attention on the part of the umpires. Bengough in that year was the best of the Rugby, bowlers, and his being compelled to retire from • the attack nearly lost his side the match, Rugby winning by only 37 runs.

Something of the ' same sort happened iin South Africa a year or two ago. Jones had bowled the last over on Monday evening. On Tuesday morning he bowled the first over, off the third ball of which the batsman was caught. The mistake was then discovered, and the umpires were appealed to. It was not suggested that there had been any intention to break the law. The umpires, basing their decision on the law which says that they are the sole judges of fair or unfair play, gave the batsman not out, and ordered another bowler to bowl. But, with due deference to the umpires, I think that > the batsman was fairly out. Here, again, the umpire was lacking in attention, but it was open to the batsman, or his partner, or the captain, to appeal " before the incident happened." As they did riot do so, they ought to have taken the consequences, : just as in the case of a batsman who is dismissed by a seventh ball.

Catches which are effected through the agency of two. or more people are riot infrequent. I myself was once dismissed in this way. Batting for South v. North at Lord's in September, 1900,1 drove a ball hard back and wide of the right hand of the bowler, E. Smith. Smith just touched the ball with the tips of his fingers, deflecting its course on to the stalwart frame of "W.G.," who was in with me, and before it fell, Smith made a successful grab, arid I had to go. In the Surrey and Philadelphian ... match in 1897, Abel was caught at coverrslip, the ball having first touched the wicketkeeper's hand, whence it went to slip, who also failed to accept the . opportunity of distinguishing himself, but sent the ball into F. W. Ralston's hands, who was fielding at extra slip.

But it os, perhaps, such catches as that made by Captain Adams which are the most exhilarating to read about. Captain Adams leaped oyer an iron fence 3ft lOin high in the old Phcenix Park, and, while in the air, caught the hall in his left hand. Then there was the catch effected -in Ceylon, in 1828, in a match between the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery. It seems that a gunner, fielding in the country, seeing that the ball, hit high in the air, was coming in his direction, ran backward to catch it, but, • misjudging the distance, received it plump on the top of his pith helmet; the ball, however, instead of bouncing off, went right through the headgear, resting on his head inside. * .

A. D. Nourse, of the South African eleven, had a curious experience against Sussex. He played a ball from Albert Relf on to the round, and thinking it would curl on to is wicket, knocked it away with his hand. On appeal he 1 was given out under law 29 of the " Laws of Cricket," which runs—" Either batsman is out if he touch , with his hands or take up the ball while in play, unless at the request of the opposite side."