Out-door Games: Cricket and Golf/Chapter 14
EDGAR WILLSHER.
CHAPTER XIV
The Unfair-Bowling Question
More than once in this book allusion has been made to the unhealthy preponderance of the batting element in the game of cricket. People now go to watch a cricket match, not for the sake of seeing a fair duel between bowler and batsman, a close finish, or a decisive result, but merely a batting spectacle. Fast bowlers get worn out prematurely, and are driven to banging the ball down in the hope of the batsman giving catches in the slips; while slow bowlers, in the attempt to bring about impossible breaks, sacrifice length, direction, and spin. The field grows weary, and cricket, instead of being a grand game, becomes a toil and a weariness. Every change that has been made during the last thirty years has, on the whole, been in the direction of handicapping the bowler and favouring the batsman; and, as if this were not enough, the greater knowledge of soils and seeds, heavy rollers and mowing machines, have combined with the alteration of the rules to make mammoth scores the rule and not the exception. The general result has been drawn matches, a bowing down before the hideous power of gate-money, and a degradation of what once was the grandest game in the world.
O'Connell once said that he could drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament. Such a feat may not be possible in the case of the rules of cricket, but the rules of any game are so difficult to draft, and so much difference of opinion exists as to the proper way of interpreting them, that to a considerable extent umpires have to hold the scales. Umpires have ultimately to decide and to give a judgment on many points during a match, and, for the time being, against their ruling there is no appeal. To decide a leg-before-wicket question, a run out, a catch at the wicket, is difficult, but to decide the question as to what constitutes throwing as opposed to bowling, is harder still. So great is this difficulty that a body of cricketers, who have no organised legal position, have come to the front and endeavoured in a measure to take the solution of the throwing problem out of the hands of the umpires. This body of amateurs has named and classified certain bowlers. In one class it has placed bowlers whose delivery is not a matter of doubt, who do not bowl at all, but throw—in the opinion, at least, of the members of this unauthorised body of amateurs. Then there is another class which consists of bowlers about whose delivery there is a doubt, and this unauthorised body in this case, if I understand the question, has graciously allowed the umpires some liberty of action. The result is that umpires will most carefully watch these bowlers of the second class, and, if there is any doubt, "no-ball" them; but, with respect to the bowlers of the first class, it is to be presumed that if the wishes of the Captains are to be observed, they will be driven out of cricket: they have been given the black spot, to adopt a phrase out of "Treasure Island": they are deposed, and their cricket careers as bowlers must be at an end.
I intend no sort of disrespect to the gentlemen who have thus endeavoured to usurp the functions of the umpires. They are the captains of the various county elevens, and the names of Lord Hawke, Messrs. Mason, Jephson, Woods, Ranjitsinghi, Jones, Maclaren, M'Gregor, Jessop, are in themselves guarantees of merit and respect. But it may be asked whether the bowling element is fairly represented as opposed to the batting. Are not all these captains batsmen and only three of them bowlers? And is it not rather ungracious that on such a question, which mainly concerns bowlers, a tribunal consisting almost entirely of batsmen should give a decision on a purely bowling question? This is the first aspect that strikes one on considering the matter; but the whole question is so difficult that it may be well to consider carefully what is bowling and what is throwing.[1]
I have said that a definition of throwing is impossible. There are only certain features that must be present whenever throwing exists. It is impossible to throw without bending the arm at the moment of delivery, indeed I have grave doubts whether it is possible to bowl fast with a bent arm without throwing. But this is absolutely certain—it never can be a throw if the ball is delivered with a straight arm: some bend of the arm must accompany every throw. It would seem from this that no so-called bowler, who bowls with a bent arm, must complain if his delivery is regarded with suspicion. If, therefore, the Marylebone Club wants to put the subject absolutely beyond any question, all that is necessary is to make it a rule that the ball must be delivered with a straight arm; and that if the arm is bent the umpire shall call "no ball." For reasons I shall give later, I think that this course would be a mistake; but undoubtedly it would finally abolish throwing, and, though it might be hard upon certain bowlers, it would settle a vexed and difficult question. Is it, however, quite certain that to bend the arm at the moment of delivery is sufficient to make a throw? It is on this point that much difference of opinion exists.
One critic says that there must be a jerk of the elbow, a second that an indefinable something is brought into being by the wrist, a third that the thrower always checks his run before delivering the ball. Everybody attempts a definition, but nobody has succeeded; because to define a throw is impossible. We have all seen bowlers at Lord's whose delivery looks quite above suspicion when viewed from the pavilion behind the bowler's arm, but which looks altogether different when seen from the grand stand; and it is this fact, I suppose, that caused the M.C.C. to empower either umpire to call "no ball." Some critics say that neither umpire is in a position to judge if a ball is thrown or bowled; that this can only be known by the wicket-keeper or batsman, or by somebody, at any rate, who has no voice in the matter. My own opinion is that, though the batsman and wicket-keeper may be in a better position to judge than the umpires, they cannot be infallible, and that the only man in the world who can know whether the ball is thrown or bowled is the bowler himself. Nobody could convince me that in Utopia, or any other place where all cricketers were sportsmen, and everybody wholly virtuous, there would be any bowling that was not fair. I mean by this, that in its first stages every ball that is thrown and not bowled has been done so intentionally. It is probable that the conscience and perceptions have become dulled by constant repetition of the offence, but I believe it to be a fact that the bowler, and the bowler alone, is the only man who can really know if a ball is bowled or thrown. So we arrive at this position: the power of "no-balling" cannot be given to the one person who really knows whether a throw has or has not been perpetrated, and it has to be given to the umpires, whose opinion must always be only too fallible.
I have said that it is very doubtful if a fast ball can be delivered with a bent arm except by a throw. I cannot back up this opinion by scientific reasons, but it would seem that the longer the leverage the easier is it to bowl fast; if you bend the arm you must lose some swing, and if notwithstanding this you can bowl a fast ball, you must make up the deficiency in swing by something—and that a throw. On this, however, there is a very great difference of opinion.
To sum up the whole controversy, I venture to lay down the following propositions: (1) To define a throw is impossible. (2) Nobody can tell whether a large proportion of doubtfully delivered balls are or are not throws, except the bowler himself. (3) The umpires are the only authorities who ought to adjudicate, as they are put in that position for the purpose, and have as good opportunities of judging as anybody except the bowler himself, the wicket-keeper, and batsman, all of whom are precluded from giving a decision. (4) It is impossible to throw unless the arm is bent; and if, therefore, the authorities want finally to disestablish throwing, let the rule be altered so as to make it obligatory to bowl every ball with a straight arm. The question then being very doubtful, except in a few very obvious cases of throwing, it ought, in my opinion, to be decided on broad principles. The point above all to be kept in mind, is how to promote the best interests of cricket.
Too many runs and drawn matches are the curse of modern cricket. It seems fated that every change made in the rules should favour the batsman, and increase the number both of runs and drawn matches. What, then, is the proper attitude to take with regard to this question of throwing? I may be unorthodox in the view I take, but I certainly think that considerable latitude ought to be given in favour of the bowler, and the benefit of the doubt be on his side, with this proviso, that cricket should not be allowed to become dangerous. You cannot lay down a hard and fast rule, but why should not the whole matter be looked at from a common-sense point of view? Why not allow all bowling, unless there can be no possible doubt that it is throwing, for slow and medium pace bowlers? Whilst in the case of very fast bowling, seeing that a throw under these circumstances would be dangerous, let the benefit of the doubt be the other way, and "no-ball" every doubtful delivery. Why is throwing not allowed, and why was the rule originally passed that the ball must not be thrown or jerked? Because in the days of rough cricket to throw would have been dangerous to the batsman. It would be dangerous still, though the cricket grounds are so smooth. Yet, does any reasonable being suppose that cricket has suffered because there may be some doubt of the fairness of the delivery of Tyler, Geeson, McKibbin, at the present time, or of Southerton, Watson, David Buchanan, or Nash, in former days? I contend that bowlers of this kind ought never to be "no-balled," unless there is no manner of doubt in the minds of every judge of the game that the ball is thrown, not bowled. You would not damage perfectly legitimate bowling. It is no easier for the general run of cricketers to bowl with a doubtful action than with a fair action; but it is certain that it should be the object of every cricketer to diminish, not increase, the number of runs, and runs will increase if you disestablish a certain number of more or less successful bowlers, because there is some uncertainty about the fairness of their delivery. So easy is it to bat in these days on the perfect cricket ground, that every encouragement ought to be given to the bowler. Can anybody say that this is done when you advise umpires to "no-ball" Tyler, whose bowling has hurt nobody, but has been of great assistance to Somersetshire? Let there be no manner of doubt as to the perfectly fair delivery of fast bowlers whose bowling is dangerous to the batsman; let the batsman have, as it were, the benefit of the doubt; but in every other case let it be an undoubted throw.
The captains in this case have, I think, acted unfairly and prematurely. They might have communicated privately with the M.C.C., and given it as their opinion that certain bowlers threw, and that there was doubt about the delivery of others. Then the M.C.C., acting on the undoubted weight of the captains' opinion, could have taken some steps. As it is, the captains have endeavoured to force the hands of the M.C.C., and usurped powers which do not belong to them; and this has been unfair to the cricketers named. Considering the grave importance of the step taken, it would have been only right and proper to put on the agenda-paper notice of the point to be raised, but, if I am correctly informed, this was not done, and one captain at least left the meeting before the discussion was opened. We have also learned since that the meeting was not unanimous, for Mr. Ranjitsinghi wrote to disagree, wholly or in part, with the decision.
When a rule is written and incorporated in the laws of a game, repeal or alteration is always possible, but if a phrase or an epigram comes to have all the power of an unwritten law, repeal or alteration becomes a matter of tradition and sentiment, and is almost impossible to effect. Years ago, when matches were generally finished in two days because the wickets were more difficult, it became an unwritten law that unless the umpire felt no doubt whatever that a man was run out, leg before, stumped, or caught at the wicket or elsewhere, that he was given not out—in other words, the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt. This principle became fixed, and to this day it seems to me umpires are still in favour of the batsmen and against the bowlers. Umpires seem inclined to lean too strictly to the letter of the law, and an equitable spirit is not theirs. Once again let me urge the importance of keeping in view the best interests of the game. If, when wickets were not so good, the runs not half so numerous, and drawn matches comparatively rare, it was in the best interests of the game that batsmen should be given the benefit of the doubt, surely now, when nearly half the matches on fast wickets are drawn, when one wicket averages nearly twenty runs as opposed to ten in former days, when bowlers get prematurely worn out, it is the bowlers who should have the benefit of the doubt. The rules are even altered as against the bowlers in this matter of throwing, because they lay it down that bowlers are to be "no-balled," unless the umpire is convinced that the delivery is fair; and a short time ago power was given to both umpires to "no-ball" a bowler for throwing. Personally, I think that it would be unjust and detrimental to the game if all bowlers who bowled with a bent arm were to be "no-balled," but if the authorities think that there should be no doubt about the matter, let them make the rule thus: All balls shall be bowled; if jerked, or delivered with a bent arm, the umpire shall call "no ball." If this were the ruling, there would at any rate be a final solution of a great difficulty, which would be far better than what happens now when Mold and Tyler play in one match and are allowed to bowl, and go on next day to another match and are "no-balled." As I said before, I think this course could only add to the horrible plethora of runs, and its advantages would not nearly balance its injustice and evils: but if it is not adopted, let the bowlers have the benefit of the doubt, and let there be no manner of doubt about the ball being thrown before the fatal "no ball" is called. Does any sportsmanlike cricketer who is a good judge of the game really think that cricket would have been any better, if Southerton, Buchanan, Nash, Crossland, Jones, A. H. Evans, McKibbin, Lockwood, Tyler, and Mold had been systematically "no-balled"? I have carefully watched all these bowlers, and though I think that the fastest of them frequently throw or threw, I am well aware that better judges think otherwise. Anyhow it is not an absolute certainty that any of them has done so. Why should they not have the benefit of the doubt? If such benefit is withheld, it should perhaps be in the case of Mold and Jones, whose bowling might become dangerous owing to its great pace.
One last growl from an old cricketer, and an appeal to batsmen. It seems to me that the broad interests of the game are being overlooked owing to the great preponderance of the batsmen over the bowlers. Batsmen as a class seem to be against any alteration of the law which would tend to diminish the run-getting. This question of throwing is one symptom, the refusal of the captains to sanction any alteration of the rules respecting leg before wicket is another, and speaking generally, the agitation against excessive run-getting and drawn matches seem to arise and be carried on by those whom I will call the enlightened section of the public. I mean those whose memories carry them back for some years, and those cricketers of all ages whose object in going to see cricket is to see a grand game all round; good, and therefore rather difficult batting; true, good-length bowling; smart fielding; a decisive result, and, if possible, a close finish. I cannot help thinking that the County Captains have lost an opportunity. Not one word have they as a body said on the curse of cricket, the abnormal run-getting, but instead of this they attempt by a high-handed usurpation of power to drive certain bowlers out of cricket, driving one more nail into the unfortunate bowlers, to add to the already colossal number of runs.
I warn the batsmen that, if they persist in their opposition to all reform, the interest of the public will ultimately flag, and the reforms will then be brought about by a revolution and not by constitutional methods: if cricketers are wise, they will anticipate this change rather than provoke it.
- ↑ It seems to us that in this matter the County Captains have acted quite beyond their powers. Till the rules of cricket are altered by the M.C.C., no one except an umpire has the least right to lay down the law as to who bowls fairly and who does not. The County Captains have constituted themselves a sort of supreme court over the head of the M.C.C. By their action they have struck one of the hardest blows at the true interests of cricket it is possible to conceive, and have done an injury which it may be difficult to remedy.