Throughout the history of the game of cricket, and the development of bowling as an art form, there have been many notable occasions where bowlers have been called out for "throwing", "chucking" or "jerking". The aboriginal paceman Eddie Gilbert, who famously dismissed Don Bradman for a third ball duck in a first class match at the ‘Gabba, Australian Ian Meckiff, whose career was ended in a Test match at the same ground when he was called four times in his only over of the match, and Muttiah Muralitharan in the Boxing Day Test of 1995 and again in an ODI in Adelaide 1999. These were by no means the only instances, but they are some of the more famous ones. In the final instances, in the ODI at the Gabba, there was a grave possibility that the match between Australia and Sri Lanka, and subsequently the tour, would be abandoned.
Even
our local district has not been immune from such controversy. One of the
stories retold today is the day when Jamberoo's Tony "Red" Hastings,
umpiring at square leg, called Albion Park's fast bowler Paul Collard for
throwing in the late 1980's. Collard’s action was certainly unusual, and had
caused talk by other teams when they played against him. The extenuating
circumstances had led to Collard actually having had his action tested, and had
documentation to prove it had been cleared at the highest levels. This didn't
stop the call being made on that particular occasion. It was an amusing tale to
those of us who heard it after the event, though perhaps not quite as amusing to
those playing in the game at the time.
However,
what then does one make of a contest that took place back in February 1864,
when the tensions of two teams over such an incident combined to throw the
local cricket district into disarray.
On
Wednesday February 3 1864, a team from the Illawarra Cricket Club of
Wollongong, and the "Britannia" Cricket Club of Kiama, were to meet
on the cricket field in battle. With the teams milling with the gathering
spectators on the side of the marked boundaries, the two team captains walked
onto the field for the toss;
Accordingly, a little before midday the teams respectively
representing those clubs met in a paddock forming part of the estate known as
Johnson’s meadows, at a distance (across the enclosure) of about half a mile
from Mr Beatson’s Hotel. The Kiama men, having won the toss sent their
opponents to the wickets, and then, having occupied the field and given three
preliminary cheers, the game commenced [1]
Each
team has brought its own umpire for the match. Illawarra’s representative, Henry
Brettell, takes up his place at the non-strikers end, while Kiama’s
representative, Robert Miller, is stationed at square leg. The first over is
bowled by the redoubtable Alexander Gordon, a canny cricketer who has played
around the districts in recent years with great success. He is a noted
wicket-taker, whose fast left-arm sliding deliveries have bested some of the
best batsmen around, including those from the “big smoke” in Sydney.
He
is immediately on song, troubling the striker Lahiff, who manages to scramble
off strike through a bye that gets past the Kiama keeper. This brings Morris on
strike, who is also immediately in trouble, and from the fourth ball of the
over, the ball from Gordon appears to come from the batsman’s pads, onto the
bat, and is squeezed out to point, where Jack Howard takes the catch. The Kiama
team has begun its appeal, when, contravening convention, the square leg umpire
raised his finger and proclaimed, “that’s out!”
Upon delivery of the third or fourth ball, Morris played to
it; it shot off his leg on to his bat. The point (Howard) stepped forward and
caught it. Howard appealed to me, and on the impulse of the moment I said
“out!”, although aware directly I had said the word, it was not my place to
have spoken. Morris immediately left the ground. [2]
There
was some consternation amongst the Wollongong players on the sideline, trying
to comprehend why their player had seemingly been dismissed by the square leg
umpire – and a Kiama umpire at that! From the bowlers end, the standing umpire
Brettell no doubt felt put out also by this turn of events, and he immediately
decided to call the batsman back to the wicket. This in turn caused some angst
among the Kiama players, who felt they had dismissed the batsman fairly and
squarely.
When he (Morris) had proceeded several paces, Brettell called
him back. Gordon then asked Brettell why Morris was not out. Brettell said he
(Morris) played the ball off his leg. Gordon called out to Morris – “Morris,
how did you play that ball?” Morris replied “Off my leg on to my bat”. Brettell
then said it was a bump-ball. After some little dispute about the matter,
Morris went out [3]
So now the batsman leaves,
and though Morris has admitted he is dismissed fairly, there is little doubt
that Brettell is not happy with how the dismissal has been enacted, and
certainly the players on the sidelines still feel that treachery has occurred
in how their opener has been given out. Gordon’s over is completed, and the
score sits at 1/1.
From the opposite end, the
second Kiama quick Frank Fredericks comes into the attack, and four runs are
taken from his initial over. Now it is time for Gordon to commence his second
over, and from here the game explodes.
In the next over by Gordon, when the third or fourth ball was
delivered, the Wollongong umpire called out “no ball”. The ball passed the
long-stop. One of the men at the wickets said “Let us run, we’ll make two”.
They ran, and it was when the ball was back in the bowler’s hands that Gordon
asked Brettell what he was “no balled” for. It was then, and not before, that
Gordon threw down the ball, and said he would play no more, and challenged them
to put him to any test as to his having jerked the ball. [4]
So Gordon, who is so well
known around the local districts that, even moments before this game had
commenced, his opponents had enquired of his availability to represent them in
a game they were hoping to organise against the Albert Club in Sydney in a few
weeks time, has been called for “jerking”, which was the term used for what we
now know as “throwing”. This is a massively serious charge, especially in an
era that was still really coming around to full overarm bowling, as opposed to
round arm or even underarm bowling.
The chronology of this event
is only challenged in one area, that being the moment when Gordon began to
vehemently disparage the decision as made by the umpire, and how that is then
interpreted by those involved.
We have no intention to repeat the hard words which, on such
an occasion, each side is apt, more or less, to apply to the others, but as we
are sincerely desirous of seeing the noble game of cricket encouraged and
cultivated, we would suggest that it may be worthwhile for each side to
consider how far they might have been wrong. Our friend Gordon was, no doubt, a
little too fast in throwing down the ball, and declaring he would bowl no more,
as soon as the Wollongong umpire had mentioned his reason for declaring a “no
ball”. [5]
You remark in your elaborate report of the match referred to,
that Gordon’s bowling was objected to on the pretence that it was a “jerk”,
thereby inferring that such was not the case. Now, how could your reporter tell
whether the bowling was fair or otherwise? No person but the umpire stationed
at the bowler’s end can tell with any degree of accuracy whether a “no ball”
has been delivered, and consequently your insinuation had better have been left
alone.
Your statement that Mr. Gordon waited until he understood
what he was “no-balled” for before he expressed his intention of bowling no
more is also untrue. Mr. Brettell had no sooner called “no ball” than Mr.
Gordon, in language not the most refined, said he would not deliver another
ball; he evidently knew where his fault lay, and was fully expecting it to be
discovered. Mr. Gordon, you say, was a little hasty – nothing more, of course!
A man possessing such an angelic temper as the individual referred to, could
not depart altogether from the path of rectitude! He merely expressed himself
in the choicest phraseology of Billingsgate, which is termed being a little
hasty.[6]
Mr Osbourne writes in the fashion of a man who likes to see
his productions in print, and I am afraid mistakes his own sallies of
impertinence and flippancy for wit. He shows this plainly enough, I think, in
his remarks on your assertion that I was a little too fast (which I freely
admit), and he winds up by saying, with the positiveness of one who heard it,
that I employed “the choicest phraseology of Billingsgate”. The allusion to Billingsgate,
though I never saw that celebrated fishmarket, I quite understand; and I say,
as Mr Osbourne says of another part of your report, that his assertion is
utterly untrue, I may ask him, too, in his own words, “how he could know this?”[7]
As to the charge that Mr Gordon “used language not the most
refined” I can only say, that I did not hear him make use of any expressions
that he need be ashamed of. [8]
And so it is that the
experienced Alexander Gordon has been called for “jerking”. As can be seen, the
opinion from the Wollongong camp is that Gordon was fully aware that his
bowling action was suspect, and reacted immediately upon being called
accordingly. All of the opinion of the Kiama camp is that it was not until the
ball returned to the bowler that he enquired as to the reason for the call of
no ball, and reacted upon learning that he had been called for jerking, and not
over stepping.
However, there is now another
piece of the puzzle to put in place, and it is this. The Wollongong umpire in
question, Henry Brettell, is formerly of the township of Kiama, and had indeed
played cricket within the district some summers beforehand – and he is not
thought of particularly fondly.
We believe, however, not only that the decision was utterly
erroneous, but that the umpire was a person in whom, whatever his mates might
think of him, they could not reasonably expect their opponents to have any
condolence. [9]
With reference now to your liberal criticism on our umpire,
Mr. Brettell. You state that we could not reasonably expect our opponents to
have any confidence in him. Why, may I ask are we to entertain the same
opinions of Mr. Brettell as the Kiama team? They cannot be in a position to
judge of his fitness for the office of umpire. Mr. Brettell may have been a very
indifferent cricketer when in Kiama several years ago, but is that any reason
why he should not improve? If Mr. Brettell was disliked as an individual by the
majority of the Kiama team, was it our duty to secure a man who could make it
his boast that he was the personal friend of the Kiama team collectively and
individually? I should say not. We chose Mr. Brettell because we considered him
fit for the office, and we have had no cause to alter our opinion of him;
therefore it is perfectly immaterial to us what our opponents thought of him.
Again, our umpire’s decision is said by you to be erroneous; no mention is made
of the party who officiated for Kiama as umpire – his decision was too just to
be for a single moment doubted; he spoke when everyone acquainted with the
rudiments of cricket was aware that he had no right to, and consequently one of
our men had to retire, unfairly given out by a man to whom the theory of
cricket was a sealed book. [10]
… and any candid person will not be surprised that I should
have felt annoyed at being “no-balled” by a mere boy, who not only can have no
great knowledge of the game, but was unfavourably known in Kiama in other and
more important respects. Master Brettell may have improved in the knowledge of the game
during the time he has lived in Wollongong; but it is doubtful if his character
for integrity, or his manners, are much mended. [11]
Mr. Osbourne gives you a flattering account of Mr. Brettell’s
cricketing capabilities for the post of umpire, but he omits to say anything of
his qualifications as a gentleman. Our umpire, Mr. R. Miller, does not escape the
criticism of your correspondent either; leaving Mr. Miller’s cricketing
knowledge aside, we can rely on his decision being given in an honourable
manner. I do not know whether they can say the same of Mr. Brettell or not. [12]
It was evident to me that Mr. Brettell was determined to give
his own side every possible preference; but whether this was merely from his
own inclination, or being only a tool in the hands of the players, and
consequently entirely guided by their suggestions, I will not take upon me to
say – this is best known to himself.
But it was abundantly evident to the spectators, by Mr.
Brettell’s attempt to favour the player who first lost his wicket, by saying
the ball bounded off his leg, and then when the player admitted it was off his
bat, the umpire, to justify his first error (if it was one) said it bounded off
the ground.
Moreover, it appears singular that if Mr. Gordon’s bowling is
a jerk, as decided by Mr. Brettell, that it was never discovered before; for to
my knowledge Mr Gordon has been bowling in matches for many years both in this
and the neighbouring districts, and against some of the best players; but it
would appear his bowling was never objected to before, and I suppose it was
only discovered on that occasion by Mr. Brettell’s superior knowledge of
cricket and remarkable perspicuity. [13]
At
this point, the Kiama team walk from the field in disgust at this ruling, while
Brettell and the two not out batsmen, once they realise this is not likely to
be a short break in play, follow afterwards. There is much commotion on the
side lines, with both sets of teams absolutely believing that they are in the
right and that their opponents are making a mockery of the game.
As
the Wollongong players begin to play a pick up game on the marked arena, it
becomes clear that a discussion must take place. And so it is that the Kiama
vice-captain walks over to meet with the Illawarra captain, to discuss the
possibility of the game restarting. Although it is unclear as to what, if any,
conditions are to be placed on the game recommencing, there is little doubt
about the context of the outcome of this.
We regret too that when an attempt was subsequently made by
Mr. John Black on behalf of the Kiama man to rearrange the matter and proceed
with the game, his advances were met by the Captain of the Wollongong team in a
spirit quite inappropriate with the idea of a friendly contest. The moral of
the matter, in as far as cricketing is concerned, that any club had better
renounce all attempts to play a match against another, if they cannot provide
captains and umpires who are not only adequately acquainted with the practice
of cricket, but possess sufficient judgement and temper to perceive when it is
worthwhile to interrupt a game and ruin the chance of exciting unfriendly
feelings for the sake of enforcing some technical point in rules which every
club or every chance meeting is at liberty to observe or to disregard as it
pleases. It is unfortunate that when a popular recreation has become the
subject of a code of regulations conventionally acknowledged, people soon begin
to regard it in much the same light as those transactions which are under the
control of positive statute law. In such affairs as horseracing where large
sums are frequently at stake this may be all very well; but we are very much
afraid that cricket can receive no benefit from over-legislation; and a paltry
dispute about a style of bowling which does not affect the essential character
of the game, seems a very inadequate reason for marring a day’s friendly sport.
We hope both the parties concerned will take counsel, and that we may yet see
the match played out this season. We believe that, on the whole, both sides
rein capital for the contest, and that there would have been an excellent
match, notwithstanding the inadequate and desultory practice of the Kiama men. [14]
Reference is further made to an attempt which was made to
arrange the affair, and thus continue the game. Mr. Black, the deputy from the
Britannia Club, told our captain that it was the wish of the Kiama captain to
continue the game if possible. Mr. Brown replied that he did not wish to be
insulted again, as we considered we had all been grossly insulted by their team
leaving the field, which in all probability would have been the case had the
match gone on and Gordon bowled. The reply was construed by Mr. Black (who must
have a remarkably thin skin) into a personal affront, and thus the negotiation
was put a stop to.
Allusion is also made to our captain and umpire as not
possessing tempers to suit their opponents. I would advise you to look at home
before you criticise us. The captain of the Kiama team is, of course, the
paragon of perfection, so far as temper is concerned; the spectators of the
match can vouch for that, and they assert that Mr. Gordon is not fit, even for
the ranks in the regiment of cricketers. [15]
After more disputing, the Kiama team left the ground. A
number of the Wollongong players then came on the ground and began to play
themselves. I then left, and shortly after met Mr. Black, who asked me to go
with him and try to arrange for the match to go on. I advised him to get some
other person to go, and suggested it would be best to appoint fresh umpires. He
came back soon. I asked him if he had succeeded. He said, “No, I have been
grossly insulted, and it is no use; they will not try to arrange”.
Such is the plain truth; and I will now leave the matter with
your cricketing readers to say, who was the most to blame in bringing the match
to such an unsatisfactory termination.[16]
Once
again, two versions of the same story come out, and once again neither side is
budging from its belief.
At
this point, the Wollongong team pack up their things, and make their way north
and home, with the derisive calls from some of the Kiama supporters and players
following in their ears. To fill in the afternoon;
A scratch match which was got up by the Kiama team and their
friends after the departure of their opponents from the ground, exhibited some good practice and
showed that excellent material exist in the district. We hope that, whether the
match with Wollongong be played out or not, means may be found to get up a
match with one of the Sydney clubs before the end of the season.[17]
What
was most interesting in researching and reading about this incident in the
history of Kiama cricket, was the correspondence that was available in the
newspaper of the time. However, the media of the age doesn’t seem to be too
different from the modern age, with the owner of the media able to make
publishing decisions that best serve their own purposes. Joseph Weston had only
started publishing the Kiama Independent
and Shoalhaven Advertiser some twelve months previously, but his print
decisions could possibly be said to be attempting to influence his readers
opinions on this matter. Having written the initial report on the match and
incidents involved, he then deigned to print the Letter to the Editor by John
Osbourne, who was the Honorary Secretary of the Illawarra Cricket Club.
However, following that letter, Weston did feel the need to add on the
following:
[We do not think the tone of the above letter very well
calculated to forward the writer’s professed desire to “meet our Kiama friends
again to contest for victory in the noble game”. We do not think it worth while
to waste space in re-asserting the truth of the facts as narrated by us; and
the Kiama umpire and others so courteously mentioned by him can, if they
please, when they see Mr. Osbourne’s letter in print, vindicate their character
and competency, and say whether our statement about Mr. Gordon and his bowling,
and the appeal is or is not “untrue”, as Mr. Osbourne politely asserts. We can
inform Mr. Osbourne that the use of the word pretence does by no means
necessarily imply an accusation of falsehood, but is pretty nearly equivalent
to the word “plea”. Mr Osbourne,
however, seems in other respects to misunderstand either our words or our
meaning; and we cannot now take time to set him right. We are much obliged to
our correspondent for his offer to forward a copy of Lillywhite’s Guide for our
enlightenment. We will not give him that trouble, as we can always when
requisite consult that work without his assistance – ED.IND] [18]
Then,
even more interesting, was what was printed a couple of weeks later;
We have received a note signed Henry C. Brettell, and
referring to the correspondence on the subject of the late cricket match, which
appeared in our last. We must decline publishing the same for the reason that,
as the writer himself says, he “makes no statement”; and his epistle consists
merely of some attempts at sarcasm – very harmless, but not in the best taste.
If H.C. B. is very desirous of seeing his letter in print, he may probably get
it published in one of the Wollongong journals, which together have four times
our space to fill. [19]
Cricket
between these two clubs certainly did resume, though this game was never
restarted or completed. The Albert Club of Sydney, which was the unofficial
flamebearer of the game of cricket in New South Wales, eventually ruled that
the game was a forfeit by the Kiama club, and that the match should be awarded
to the Illawarra Cricket Club. However, the ball that was purchased by the
Kiama club, to be awarded to the winner of the contest, was never delivered,
and remained in the Kiama club’s possession until the next match between the
two teams was played.
As
to the claim that Alexander Gordon was indeed a “jerker” – well, there is
nothing in print to say that he was ever called again in an organised match for
throwing. However, his story, and the conclusion of this particular part of
this story, doesn’t finish here, and maybe in the long run, the real answer to
this question as to the legality of his action can be found in another match,
one that was played some ten years later – a match that also adds another glorious
chapter to the multilayered history of cricket in Kiama…
[1] Match
Report. The Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser – Tuesday 9 February,
1864
[2] Robert
Miller, Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[3] Robert
Miller, Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[4] Robert
Miller, Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[5] Match
report. Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser, Tuesday 9 February, 1864.
[6] John
Osbourne. Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 23 February 1864.
[7]
Alexander Gordon. Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven
Advertiser, Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[8] Robert
Miller, Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[9] Match
report. Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser, Tuesday 9 February, 1864.
[10] John
Osbourne. Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 23 February 1864.
[11]
Alexander Gordon. Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven
Advertiser, Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[12] John
King, Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[13] A.
Spectator, Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 8 March 1864.
[14] Match
report. Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser, Tuesday 9 February, 1864.
[15] John
Osbourne. Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 23 February 1864.
[16] Robert
Miller, Letters to the Editor, Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser,
Tuesday 1 March, 1864
[17] Match
report. Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser, Tuesday 9 February, 1864.
[18] Editor,
Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser, Tuesday 23 February 1864.
[19] Editor,
Kiama Independent and Shoalhaven Advertiser, Tuesday 8 March 1864.
