CRICKET.

Putaruru Press, Volume V, Issue 177, 24 March 1927, Page 8

CRICKET.

NOTES. (By “ Cover-point ”) TICKLISH QUESTIONS ANSWERED. Recently a number of questions on fine points of cricket law were given in this column. The questions and the answers thereto are given herewith. 1. A no-hall is howled ; batsman runs out: wicketkeeper catches it and stumps him. Umpire says, “ Not out, it touched his wrist.” Was it out ? Answer. —The umpire’s decision is | final, and therefore the batsman is ! out. The umpire was in error, how- | ever, for the hall being in play, the S decision should have Men .“ run out.” A bowler is quite entitled to try and | run a batsman out who leaves the s wicket at either end just as the ball 1 is about to be 1 bowled. 2. Batsman takes, guard li yards j to leg and bats there. A ball almost | grazes the off stump. Is it a wide ? j Answer.—Such a happening would - of course never occur and is purely I imaginary. The umpire is the sole j judge of fact, fair or unfair play, I and though a wide hall is one that ] is not within reach of the striker, in ' view of the position as stated an umpire would hardly be justified in call- ! ing a “ wide,” though strictly speaking he would be quite entitled to do j so, so long as the ball was not with- , in reach of the striker. - j .3. They were just in the middle of the second run when one of them was bowled. Is that true ? Answer.—This again is possible but not probable. A case similar which happened in Australia was decided by the M.C.C. as bowled. A bowler might deliver the ball only half-way and should the batsman run without the ball having been hit the decision would be “ bowled,” provided ’ the ball had not passed the wicket in the first instance. 4. Player is running ; wicketkeeper gets ball. Is it out if bails

are dislodged (a) by earthquake, (b) by batsman’s bat thrown at them ? The batsman is not out in both cases. “ Hit wicket ” applies solely to cases when the batsman is in the act of playing the ball. 5. Very slow ball bowled ; batsman runs out and misses it ; wicketkeeper runs to help it with his toe to the wicket, which it hits. Is it out (a) if his toe did help it along, (b) if it did not. Answer.—So long as the wicketkeeper did not cause the batsman to miss the ball he would be quite entitled to dismiss the batsman by either method. It is again solely a question for the umpire to say whether there was obstruction or unfair play.

6. Partner backs up half-way ; wicketkeeper tosses ball back ; bowler puts down his own wicket by happy thought. Is it out ? Answer.—Yes, provided the ball had not become finally settled to the satisfaction of the umpire. On the bare facts as stated an umpire should have no hesitation in giving the decision against the batsman. 7. “ A,” who is generally credible, says he was once bowled by a wide. Do you believe him ? Answer.—As there is nothing in the rules to say that a batsman shall not be out to a “ wide ” ball, as is provided for in the ease of a “ noball,” such a happening is of course possible. An umpire may not call “ wide ” until, and as soon as, the hall shall have passed the striker. On a sticky wicket a batsman often stands well in front of the popping crease, and many good break bowlers can make the ball “ do ” five or six feet on a sun-baked turf pitch. 8. My partner hits a high catch. 1 judiciously tread on toes of bowler, who misses it, then asks umpire to give me out by doing so. Does he ? Answer.—Solely a question for the umpire to decide whether the act was „ accidentally the result of the batsman regaining his crease, or whether

it amounted to obstruction. The word ‘ ‘judiciously ” clearly indicates that the interference was deliberate, and that the decision should be “ out.” 9. One bail being off, may you. run out a man by dislodging the other ? Answer.—No. A stump also must be uprooted. 10. Last ball of match is a noball ; batsman hits it and gets run out in first run. What is scored and was he out? Answer. —The batsman is out, but {Continued at Foot of Next Column)

one run is added to the score for the no-ball. FAST BOWLING. “An Enthusiast ” writes asking for further particulars in .regard to a statement made in these notes re fast bowling in New Zealand, and also asking whether Spofforth was the fastest bowler who ever lived, and if not, who was ? There are no “express” bowlers in New Zealand when judged by such speed merchants as Kortwright, Knox, Richardson, Jones and Gregory : ('at his best). Henderson, the New Zealand fast bowler in the team do tour. England, would be described as fast-medium, and he -has 1 ■l 6 be spelled to maintain that speed. In regard to Spofforth, although known as the demon bowler, he was in reality little more than medium-paced in speed. He had one very fast ball, however, which he could., deliver on occasion. Likewise he had a very deceptive. slow ball. He was. stated to be most dangerous when bowling fastish-mediums. He was given the name “ demon ” because of his cast of countenance and the set determination of his gaunt features when bowling. The fastest bowler the world has seen is purely & matter of individual opinion. Warner, than whom there are few better judges of cricket, has stated that he has never seen faster bowling than that done by Larwood for England in the last test match. T. Richardson (Surrey and England) was probably the best stayer of all express bowlers. He could bowl all day In a fierce sun without losing his pace, and he kept in the forefront of English cricket for seasons on end. On a fiery pitch for a few overs E. Jones could rock them in comparable with any bowler.