THE TIMES REPORTS, 1888 Thursday 9 February, page 7: CRICKET The special general meeting of the County Cricket Council was held yesterday at Lord’s. There were present Captain W E Denison (president of the Nottingham County Club), Mr W H C Oates (Nottinghamshire), Dr W G Grace (Gloucestershire), the Hon W M Jervis (Derbyshire), Mr Montagu Turner (Sussex), Messrs C W Alcock and J Shuter (Surrey), Mr George Marsham (Kent), Mr S H Swire (Lancashire), Messrs M J Ellison and J B Wostinholm (Yorkshire), Messrs P M Thornton and A J Webbe (Middlesex), Messrs T Burdett and H T Arnall-Thompson (Leicestershire), Mr H M Anderton (Somerset), Mr A H Heath (Staffordshire), Mr H W Bainbridge (Warwickshire), Mr M P Betts (Essex), Mr W B Thornber (Cheshire), Mr C Pigg (Hertfordshire) and Mr H K Grierson (Hampshire). Mr A J WEBBE (honorary secretary) said he regretted to inform the meeting of the inability of Lord Harris to attend. Mr M J Ellison (Yorkshire) was then voted to the chair. Mr MARSHAM proposed that the chairman and honorary secretary and treasurer should be ex officio members of the council. This was seconded by Mr BETTS. CAPTAIN W E DENISON said he did not quite understand what the meeting intended to do. It was not a cricket council, but a county cricket council. He maintained that each county should only have one vote. To give votes to ex officio officers would be to give too great a preponderance to any one county. The motion was also opposed by Mr P M THORNTON, and when put to the meeting was negatived by a large majority. DR GRACE’S resolution stood next on the agenda paper. It was as follows: - “That all county matches shall commence at 12 noon on the first day, and on the second a third days play shall commence at 11 a.m., and that this rule shall be strictly enforced.” Dr Grace thought that if this rule were assed it would prevent many drawn matches, which had been so numerous in the past. Mr OATES seconded the motion, which he was sure would bring about a great improvement in the playing out of matches. It was much better than the suggestion made some time ago as to leaving the time for the drawing of stumps to the discretion of umpires. The resolution was passed unanimously. Mr A H HEATH rose to move the following: - “That arrangements shall be made on county cricket grounds to enable boundary hits to be run out.” He was afraid his county was little known as a cricket county, and their opinion would have little weight with the meeting. Staffordshire, however, was strongly of opinion that something should be done in the matter of boundary hits, and he proposed to do this by means of nets. If this were done it would considerably assist the bowlers, and the play would be much more interesting to spectators. There were grounds where all hits might be run out without any difficulty; where the grounds were not large enough, the matter might be met in the manner he proposed. 1 Dr GRACE seconded the motion, and said he used to get many more runs when most hits were run out. Mr WEBBE said there were objections to this theory which he thought made it altogether impracticable. Circumstances had altered since the day to which Dr Grace referred. Grounds are not so open now as they were then. Besides this, it would give the man who “slogged” the advantage to the detriment of the batsman who played sound cricket and got his runs by hits along the ground. The expense was also to be considered, for there were several clubs who had no real county ground. Another reason was the consideration of the spectators, whose ranks many of those present would soon be joining. He himself should not enjoy the game watching it through rails or nets. CAPTAIN DENISON mentioned that if nets were used a snick would be more valuable than, say, a fine cut or drive. The greatest scores ever made were obtained on open grounds. His own experience was that nothing tended to demoralize the field more than a long score, and running out all hits would this give the batsman an advantage. Mr WOSTINHOLM opposed the resolution, which was lost by a large majority. Mr ELLISON then moved – “That the attention of the MCC be called to the unsatisfactory effect of law 24, and to recommend that it shall be so altered as to secure that a batsman shall be out ‘if with any part of his person, being in a straight line from wicket to wicket, he stop the ball, which, in the opinion of the umpire, would have hit the wicket.’” He said that when the rule as it at present stood was originally framed no such thing was known as a batsman wilfully obstructing his wicket. The rule answered its purpose when underhand bowling was in vogue, but when round-arm bowling was introduced its effect was lost. Felix took up the question some considerable time ago with the idea of raising an agitation for the amendment of the law. In this he failed. There was a very strong feeling in Yorkshire against the practice of deliberately obstructing the wicket, and the county committee through him now brought forward the motion. Mr SWIRE said he had been instructed by the Lancashire committee to second it. Mr P M THORNTON said that Middlesex would support through resolution from Yorkshire, but they could scarcely understand the words, “cross the wicket,” of Mr Webbe’s proposition, which they would hear later on. Mr V E Walker had sent him the following suggestion to read to the meeting: - “Or if he stop any ball with any part of his person which is in a straight line between wicket and wicket, or if he cross the wicket and stop any ball which would, in the opinion of the umpire at the bowler’s wicket, have hit the striker’s wicket.” CAPTAIN DENISON rose to a point of order. He wished to know whether discussion was not useless, as they could not lay down laws or alter rules of cricket. The only body which had power to do that was the Marylebone Club. Mr W H C OATES said he was requested by the Notts committee not to vote either way, as they desired to leave the question to the Marylebone Club. Mr SHUTER said he could not support Mr Ellison’s motion, but thought Mr Webbe’s might be improved upon. 2 Mr WEBBE stated that his reason for bringing forward his resolution was because he thought Mr Ellison’s went too far and could not be carried out. He read an extract from a letter he had received from Lord Harris, in which he said, “If I could be present I should support Mr Ellison’s proposal in the strongest terms. I am not the least afraid of giving the bowler too good a chance, for I believe that the more probability there is of matches being finished, the more popular the game will be for the public; and I prefer his proposal to yours because I think it leaves less to the umpire’s individual judgment.” Mr SHUTER asked whether the meeting, representing as it did, the counties, should not formulate some idea so that the MCC might know their opinion on the subject. On being put to the vote, Mr Ellison’s resolution was carried by 11 counties (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Sussex, Kent, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Middlesex, Somersetshire and Hertfordshire) to three (Surrey, Warwickshire and Essex). Notts, Gloucestershire and Hampshire refrained from voting. Mr WEBBE then withdrew the motion of which he had given notice. It was as follows – “Or should he wilfully cross the wicket and defend it with his person.” It was resolved to submit a copy of Mr Ellison’s motion to the Marylebone Club. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting. 3 THE MARYLEBONE CLUB At yesterday’s special meeting of the MCC, held in the pavilion at Lord’s, the resolution proposed by Mr J M Heathcote and seconded by the Hon A Lyttelton, “That the gold and solver prizes now offered for annual competition by the MCC to its members be thrown open to all gentlemen amateur tennis players, under conditions to be approved by the committee,” could not be considered, it being ruled out of order. The other business comprised the increase of the entrance fee and the request to the committee to elect a limited number of life members. 4 Tuesday 27 March, page 10: CRICKET THE LEG-BEFORE-WICKET QUESTION: DECISION OF THE MARYLEBONE CLUB At the special general meeting of the County Cricket Council it will be remembered that the following resolution was passed – “That the attention of the MCC be called to the unsatisfactory effect of law 24, and to recommend that it shall be so altered as to secure than a batsman shall be out ‘If with any part of his person, being in a straight line between wicket and wicket, he stop the ball which, in the opinion of the umpire, would have hit the wicket.’” This was submitted by Mr A J Webbe, the hon. sec. of the Council, to the MCC Committee, who decided “That a sub-committee be appointed to consider and report to the General Committee whether any undue advantage rests with the batsman or with the bowler under the existing laws of cricket, and, if so, what steps should be taken to remedy this defect.” The sub-committee were – Lord Bessborough, Lord Lyttelton, Messrs C E Boyle, W E Denison, A W Ridley, V E Walker and A J Webbe, with the treasurer and secretary of the MCC.