CRICKET IN ENGLAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3746, 22 May 1899, Page 6

CRICKET IN ENGLAND.

CABLE NEWS.

[per PRESS ASSOCIATION. —COPYRIGHT.]

THE AUSTRALIANS v. SOUTH OF

ENGLAND. A VICTORY FOR THE COLONIALS. LONDON, Saturday. The match with the South of England was concluded yesterday, and resulted in a win for the Australians by 171 runs. The showery weather soaked the wicket. There was only a small attendance. The colonial players had made 222 nuns in their first innings. The Home team's first innings resulted in 171 runs. The scores are : SOUTH OF ENGLAND—First Innings. Jones, 1.b.w., b Howell 20 Shrewsbury, b Jones H Burnup, b Jones 2 Trott, b Noble 17 Alec Hearne, c Howell, h Trumblo 24 Lilley, c Johns, b Howell 10 Ford, c Truraper, b Trumble 3 Braybrook, b Howell 0 Attewell, c and b Trumble 5 J. Hearne, b Trumble 7 Gunn, not out 52 Extras 20 Total ..171 Bowling analysis.— two wickets for 57; Howell, throe for 48; Trumble, four for 35; Noble, one for 11. The Australians declared their second innings closed with eight wickets down for 227 runs. The following are the scores : AUSTRALIANS—Second Innings. Darling, c and b Trott 15 Iredale, b Attewell 27 Hill, c Shrewsbury, b Attewell 32 Noble, b J. Hearne 9 Laver, o Trott, b A. Hearne 39 Trumble, c Lilley, b Attewell 25 Trumper, c Braybrooke, b Attewell 64 Howell, c Braybrooke, bJ. Hearne 13 Gregory, not out 0 Extras 3 Total 227 [Johns and Jones did not bat.] Bowling analysis.—J. Hearne, two wicket* for 68; Trott, one for 63 ; Attewell, four for 48; A. Hearne, one for 28. SOUTH OF ENGLAND.—Second Innings. Jones, b Trumble 11 Shrewsbury, c Hill, b Trumble 31 Gunn, c Laver, b Noble ... 18 Burnup, c Darling, b Howell 0 Lilley, c and b Trumble 1 Attewell, b Howell 1 Trott, c Hill, b Trumble 9 A. Hearne, e Hill, b Trumble 1 Braybrooke, b Trumble 0 Ford, not out 17 J. Hearne, b Trumble , 3 Extras 15 Total 107 Bowling analysis.—Trumble, seven wickets for 37; two for 35; Noble, one for IG. The “no ball” question, which the Marylebone C.C. has invited Ihe Australians to discuss, lias long been a- bone of contention at Homo. Many prominent players and umpires have stated that the “bowler’s umpire” is nob at all times in a position to give an opinion of a bowler’s delivery.. Jim Phillips, an umpire who is equally well known at both ends of the globe, has often given a very decided expression of opinion that’ either umpire should be allowed to “no ball” in the event of a bowler's delivery being questionable. Phillips will be remembered as the umpire who caused a sensation in Adelaide during the visit of Stoddart’s team by twice “no balling” the South Australian fast bowler, Jones. The laws of cricket as amended by the M.C.C. in 1894 on the subject are as follows: Rule 48. The umpire at the bowler’s wicket shall be appealed to before the other umpire in all cases except those of stumping, bit wicket, run out at the striker’s wicket, but in any case in which an umpire is unable to give a decision he shall appeal to the other umpire, whose decision shall be final. 48a. If the umpire at the bowler’s end be not satisfied of the absolute fairness of the delivery of any ball, he shall call “no- ball.”