The return match between the Kiamese and Jamberoovians, which was commenced a week ago and interrupted by the weather, was resumed this day, with an intention apparently on both sides to do their best, and see the friendly contest brought to a definite and proper conclusion. The game was, however, abruptly terminated almost as soon as begun in consequence of a dispute regarding point of regulation which arose, as is maintained, in the following manner. Mr W. Miller, while taking his innings had just changed ground with his fellow batsman in consequence of a run having been obtained, when the bowler Mr. J. Anderson, before the striker had adjusted his position, proceeded to deliver another ball. Mr Miller cried that he could not play at it; but too late, so far as the delivery was concerned; and as the ball happened to take his wicket, the Kiama men, who certainly were not at the time in a position to forego any advantage, insisted on his leaving the wicket. As the point was not conceived by the umpire for Jamberoo, each party adhered to its own claim, and some warm expressions were exchanged.
The rules of the Albert Club were appealed to, and though not clear, as I believe, on the point at issue, they were without hesitation interpreted by the Kiama men in their own favour; and these gentlemen, without waiting till the warmth of the dispute might cool or any mediation be obtained, at once drew on their boots, mounted their steeds, and started for home; claiming to have won the match, and shouting along the road as if for an unquestioned triumph. It is probable that something will be said through the medium of your columns on the Kiama side of the question; and I therefore need not hesitate to state what the Jamberoovians profess to consider the real reason for their opponent’s abrupt departure, viz, that as the latter were at the time 40 or 50 notches behind, they were glad to find a pretext for putting an end to the contest. I am myself of course, perfectly indifferent between the parties; and no doubt some of the Kiama players will be quite able, if they think it worthwhile, to state the case in their own behalf. Controversy on the subject of cricket has lately occupied considerable space in the local journals.
The following is the score so far as the game was played:-
Kiama Examiner. Wednesday 14 November 1860
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXAMINER)
SIR, - You will oblige by giving publicity to the undermentioned facts relative to the late cricket match at Jamberoo. As your correspondent has brought it before the public, I think it necessary to vindicate our own cause, which may be easily comprehended by referring to the laws published by the Marylebone Club of England, for the year 1859.
Mr. W. Miller had just changed ground by a run. He then called for block, which was given by the umpire. The umpire then called “play”, and while the ball was being delivered by Mr. Anderson, the striker cried that he would not play at it; but his stumps were taken by the time he had finished his sentence. The umpire at the bowler’s wicket was appealed to, and his decision was “out”. The striker refused to give up his bat, thus disregarding the 12th and 36th rules, which are as follows:- “If either of the bails be bowled off, or if a stump be bowled out of the ground, the striker is out, and the umpires are to be the sole judges of fair or unfair play, and all disputes shall be determined by them, each at his own wicket; but in case of a catch which the umpire at the wicket bowled from cannot see sufficiently to decide upon, he may apply to the other umpire, whose opinion shall be conclusive”. Rule 36th clearly shows that the second umpire had no authority whatever in their case. At this stage of the affair, the umpire read the 38th rule which is as follows :- “They shall allow two minutes for each striker to come in, and ten minutes between each innings. When the umpire shall call “play”, the party refusing to play shall lose the match”. Now, had the former umpire, Mr A. Gordon, acted on this occasion, I am sure the match would have ended pleasantly; but the language of the substitute was too vile for any person of common decency to remain longer under than we did. And on these grounds we consider we are entitled to the match. With the 38th rule in our favour, the score of Jamberoo in the first innings is 76, and not 79, as stated in your last issue.
Yours faithfully,
G. TURNER
Kiama, 14th November, 1860.
Kiama Examiner. Saturday 17 November 1860
TO THE EDITOR OF THE KIAMA EXAMINER
SIR, - On perusing the last issue of your paper I find in it a letter signed G. Turner, junior, vindicating as he is pleased to term it their own cause; but in reality throwing the whole blame of the dispute upon my poor shoulders. Now, I would crave by your permission, Mr Editor, a small space in your columns for the following, and from Mr. turner a little more candor when he undertakes to make the public aware of how the dispute took place:-
The real facts are, I had just changed ground for a run, as Mr. Turner faithfully remarks, know also that I had just taken the bat from A. Hukins, who was caught out; being a new chum, as I might term it, and not knowing block at end, I had just went too. I asked my brother, who was co-batsman with me at the time, for block. The umpire, Mr D. King, very generously volunteered to give me one, which I accepted, and in giving me block he told me to shift my bat a little more to leg, remarking at the same time that was my middle stump, and proceeding to do as advised, and upon looking up after doing so for the umpire’s approval, I found the bowler, J. Anderson, just in the act of delivering the ball at me. I immediately remonstrated and said I would not play at it. It was utterly impossible for any person to place himself in position, let alone play before my stumps were filled. Now, Mr Editor, this is the dispute. Was I out fair or was I not? I would ask here, was there ever a precedent to this in the annals of cricket, for a bowler to place himself in such a humiliating and unmanly position as to deliver a ball at his opponent before he was ready to play at it. Mr Turner says the umpire called play. I distinctly deny hearing play called out. If I had heard play called there was not sufficient time between adjusting block and the actual delivery of the ball.
I would here ask any cricket player who has a love of fair play, if it was not a duty incumbent on the umpire to inquire whether all were ready previous to calling play, and more especially when a change had just taken place in the field; and also with the batsman at the wickets. Really, Mr Editor, it would have been more to their credit had they put me out fair and not have taken this unmanly point, and sticking to it as they have done like a drowning man would to a straw. Referring to the rules the 39th clause reads thus – They are not to order a striker out unless appealed to by the adversaries. Now Mr Turner and they all distinctly heard me ask our own umpire if he would give me out, I would give up my bat, but he would not. Mr Turner refers to the rules of the Marylebone Club, which does not decide a whit more in their favour. It plainly asserts that the umpires are sole judges of fair and unfair play, and that all disputes shall be determined by them. And had it not been for the uncalled-for interference of two of the players on the Kiama side the dispute would have been amicably settled and the match played out satisfactorily to both sides. Or had they acted with a little more consideration and not left so hastily, or had they used a little more discretion by endeavouring to obtain mediation or any other reference whatever whereby a reconciliation would have been effected, the game would have been renewed and played out with vigor and ended pleasantly. Whereas, by the course they adopted, leaving us in possession of the ground, both able and willing to play the game out, and galloping off, shouting and hallooing more like fanatics or escapes from Tarban Creek, than sane persons, and claiming at the op of their voices to have won the game. It led us to believe they were glad to find a pretext so opportunely turned up and so dexterously snatched at for putting an end to the contest. Really, Mr Editor, the appellation or the name of the club suits admirably (very) – the Lilly Whites. I can assure you, they showed the white feather with a vengeance.
Now, had I formed the remotest idea of the course they pursued, I would willingly gave up my bat, as I am quite confident the game was won by us without any additional score whatsoever; and if their intentions were really honest, or if a love of fair play was predominant among them, they had a course left open to them quite different to the one they took. Why did they not disqualify our umpire? The rules state, that with the consent of both parties the umpire can be changed; or except in case of a violation of the 42nd law, then either party can dismiss the transgressor. Now, Mr Editor, the above is my vindication in removing the blame from my shoulders, and I hope in your estimation and in the public’s I have succeeded.
I remain, Sir,
Your obedient,
WILLIAM MILLER
Jamberoo, Nov. 20
Kiama Examiner. Wednesday 21 November 1860
Prince of Wales Club Vs Lillywhites Cricket Club
2-Innings Match Played At Jamberoo, 10-Nov-1860,
Inter-Club
Prince of Wales Club Win 1st Innings by 40 runs
| Round | 2 |
| Home Side | Prince of Wales Club |
| Comment | Match abandoned over dispute over umpiring decision. |
Prince of Wales Club 1st Innings 76/10 All Out (Overs
24.2)
| Batsman | Fieldsman | Bowler | Runs |
|---|---|---|---|
| William Miller | c William Weary | b John Anderson | 15 |
| J Howard | b John Anderson | 21 | |
| J Miller | b John Anderson | 3 | |
| A Hukins* | b George Turner | 3 | |
| W Keevers | b John Anderson | 2 | |
| G Wood | b George Turner | 1 | |
| G Ritchie | b George Turner | 7 | |
| W Gordon | b John Anderson | 1 | |
| F Cousins | not out | 3 | |
| E Keevers | run out | 9 | |
| W Walsh | b John Anderson | 0 | |
| extras | (b11 lb0 w0 nb0) | 11 | |
| TOTAL | 10 wickets for | 76 |
| Bowler | O | M | R | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Anderson | 12.2 | 2 | 33 | 6 |
| George Turner | 12 | 1 | 32 | 3 |
Lillywhites Cricket Club 1st Innings 36/10 All Out (Overs
15.4)
| Batsman | Fieldsman | Bowler | Runs |
|---|---|---|---|
| John McMahon | b W Keevers | 0 | |
| James Toole | c E Keevers | b W Keevers | 1 |
| John Anderson | b W Gordon | 4 | |
| Edward Brooks | c J Miller | b W Gordon | 0 |
| George Turner* | c A Hukins | b W Keevers | 0 |
| W Irving | b W Gordon | 7 | |
| William Steele | b W Keevers | 0 | |
| William Weary | c J Miller | b W Gordon | 1 |
| Samuel Turner | b W Keevers | 6 | |
| William King | hit wicket | b W Gordon | 3 |
| Thomas Atkinson | not out | 4 | |
| extras | (b10 lb0 w0 nb0) | 10 | |
| TOTAL | 10 wickets for | 36 |
| Bowler | O | M | R | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W Keevers | 8 | 2 | 18 | 5 |
| W Gordon | 7.4 | 3 | 8 | 5 |
Prince of Wales Club 2nd Innings 9/2 Abandoned (Overs
6.2)
| Batsman | Fieldsman | Bowler | Runs |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Hukins* | c William Weary | b George Turner | 7 |
| J Miller | not out | 2 | |
| William Miller | b John Anderson | 0 | |
| extras | (b0 lb0 w0 nb0) | 0 | |
| TOTAL | 2 wickets for | 9 |
| Bowler | O | M | R | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Anderson | 3.2 | 1 | 7 | 1 |
| George Turner | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXAMINER)
SIR, - You will oblige by giving publicity to the undermentioned facts relative to the late cricket match at Jamberoo. As your correspondent has brought it before the public, I think it necessary to vindicate our own cause, which may be easily comprehended by referring to the laws published by the Marylebone Club of England, for the year 1859.
Mr. W. Miller had just changed ground by a run. He then called for block, which was given by the umpire. The umpire then called “play”, and while the ball was being delivered by Mr. Anderson, the striker cried that he would not play at it; but his stumps were taken by the time he had finished his sentence. The umpire at the bowler’s wicket was appealed to, and his decision was “out”. The striker refused to give up his bat, thus disregarding the 12th and 36th rules, which are as follows:- “If either of the bails be bowled off, or if a stump be bowled out of the ground, the striker is out, and the umpires are to be the sole judges of fair or unfair play, and all disputes shall be determined by them, each at his own wicket; but in case of a catch which the umpire at the wicket bowled from cannot see sufficiently to decide upon, he may apply to the other umpire, whose opinion shall be conclusive”. Rule 36th clearly shows that the second umpire had no authority whatever in their case. At this stage of the affair, the umpire read the 38th rule which is as follows :- “They shall allow two minutes for each striker to come in, and ten minutes between each innings. When the umpire shall call “play”, the party refusing to play shall lose the match”. Now, had the former umpire, Mr A. Gordon, acted on this occasion, I am sure the match would have ended pleasantly; but the language of the substitute was too vile for any person of common decency to remain longer under than we did. And on these grounds we consider we are entitled to the match. With the 38th rule in our favour, the score of Jamberoo in the first innings is 76, and not 79, as stated in your last issue.
Yours faithfully,
G. TURNER
Kiama, 14th November, 1860.
Kiama Examiner. Saturday 17 November 1860
TO THE EDITOR OF THE KIAMA EXAMINER
SIR, - On perusing the last issue of your paper I find in it a letter signed G. Turner, junior, vindicating as he is pleased to term it their own cause; but in reality throwing the whole blame of the dispute upon my poor shoulders. Now, I would crave by your permission, Mr Editor, a small space in your columns for the following, and from Mr. turner a little more candor when he undertakes to make the public aware of how the dispute took place:-
The real facts are, I had just changed ground for a run, as Mr. Turner faithfully remarks, know also that I had just taken the bat from A. Hukins, who was caught out; being a new chum, as I might term it, and not knowing block at end, I had just went too. I asked my brother, who was co-batsman with me at the time, for block. The umpire, Mr D. King, very generously volunteered to give me one, which I accepted, and in giving me block he told me to shift my bat a little more to leg, remarking at the same time that was my middle stump, and proceeding to do as advised, and upon looking up after doing so for the umpire’s approval, I found the bowler, J. Anderson, just in the act of delivering the ball at me. I immediately remonstrated and said I would not play at it. It was utterly impossible for any person to place himself in position, let alone play before my stumps were filled. Now, Mr Editor, this is the dispute. Was I out fair or was I not? I would ask here, was there ever a precedent to this in the annals of cricket, for a bowler to place himself in such a humiliating and unmanly position as to deliver a ball at his opponent before he was ready to play at it. Mr Turner says the umpire called play. I distinctly deny hearing play called out. If I had heard play called there was not sufficient time between adjusting block and the actual delivery of the ball.
I would here ask any cricket player who has a love of fair play, if it was not a duty incumbent on the umpire to inquire whether all were ready previous to calling play, and more especially when a change had just taken place in the field; and also with the batsman at the wickets. Really, Mr Editor, it would have been more to their credit had they put me out fair and not have taken this unmanly point, and sticking to it as they have done like a drowning man would to a straw. Referring to the rules the 39th clause reads thus – They are not to order a striker out unless appealed to by the adversaries. Now Mr Turner and they all distinctly heard me ask our own umpire if he would give me out, I would give up my bat, but he would not. Mr Turner refers to the rules of the Marylebone Club, which does not decide a whit more in their favour. It plainly asserts that the umpires are sole judges of fair and unfair play, and that all disputes shall be determined by them. And had it not been for the uncalled-for interference of two of the players on the Kiama side the dispute would have been amicably settled and the match played out satisfactorily to both sides. Or had they acted with a little more consideration and not left so hastily, or had they used a little more discretion by endeavouring to obtain mediation or any other reference whatever whereby a reconciliation would have been effected, the game would have been renewed and played out with vigor and ended pleasantly. Whereas, by the course they adopted, leaving us in possession of the ground, both able and willing to play the game out, and galloping off, shouting and hallooing more like fanatics or escapes from Tarban Creek, than sane persons, and claiming at the op of their voices to have won the game. It led us to believe they were glad to find a pretext so opportunely turned up and so dexterously snatched at for putting an end to the contest. Really, Mr Editor, the appellation or the name of the club suits admirably (very) – the Lilly Whites. I can assure you, they showed the white feather with a vengeance.
Now, had I formed the remotest idea of the course they pursued, I would willingly gave up my bat, as I am quite confident the game was won by us without any additional score whatsoever; and if their intentions were really honest, or if a love of fair play was predominant among them, they had a course left open to them quite different to the one they took. Why did they not disqualify our umpire? The rules state, that with the consent of both parties the umpire can be changed; or except in case of a violation of the 42nd law, then either party can dismiss the transgressor. Now, Mr Editor, the above is my vindication in removing the blame from my shoulders, and I hope in your estimation and in the public’s I have succeeded.
I remain, Sir,
Your obedient,
WILLIAM MILLER
Jamberoo, Nov. 20
Kiama Examiner. Wednesday 21 November 1860
No comments:
Post a Comment