Sunday, May 18, 2014

Jerks, Umpires and Media Games


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment