Proof of Innocence?

[Chris Phillips]

Michael: the 1884 Code (which applied in 1888) prohibited a bowler (a) from changing ends more than twice in the same innings, and (b) from bowling more than two overs in succession. Thus, Law 14 allowed a bowler to bowl two overs consecutively but not three. In 1889 this Law was amended to prohibit a bowler from bowling two overs consecutively.

In theory, at Blandford in 1888 Druit could have bowled five out of the first seven overs; if Druitt bowled a total of 10 overs then the Blandford innings must have been at least 17 overs in total (not 19).

Let's assume Druitt and Oakley were the only two bowlers for Purbeck. Given that neither bowler could change ends more than twice and neither bowler could bowl more than two overs in succession, then it’s possible that the innings was over in 17 overs

Over 1 (Druitt)
Over 2 (Druiit)
Over 3 (Oakley)
Over 4 (Druitt)
Over 5 (Druiit)
Over 6 (Oakley)
Over 7 (Druitt)
Over 8 (Oakley)
Over 9 (Druitt)
Over 10 (Oakley)
Over 11 (Druitt)
Over 12 (Oakley)
Over 13 (Druitt)
Over 14 (Oakley)
Over 15 (Druitt)
Over 16 Oakley)
Over 17 (Druitt)

Sorry, my mistake (not Michael's). I agree with your illustration - the Blandford innings could have been only 17 overs, not 19.

(Edit: On the other hand, by comparison with my previous assumption, each over could have been 6 balls rather than 4, which could extend the duration quite a lot.)

[Michael Banks]

Chris, I’m seeing numerous references to single innings matches in 1888 which appear to have been intended that way, at least there’s no indication that they were truncated two innings matches. Some of them are charity matches or impromptu matches, but it’s clearly not the case that cricket was only a two innings game.

This was a 2 innings game which was completed quickly but not because of weather. Richmond’s 2 combined innings were less than Mornington’s one so Mornington won by an innings. Then because the game ended early they decided to play a one innings game to fill the gap. It does appear to show that the concept of a one innings game existed at least.

[Chris Phillips]

This was a 2 innings game which was completed quickly but not because of weather. Richmond’s 2 combined innings were less than Mornington’s one so Mornington won by an innings. Then because the game ended early they decided to play a one innings game to fill the gap. It does appear to show that the concept of a one innings game existed at least.

It's a bit difficult to tell because we have only part of the article, but I think the agreed one-innings match was a follow-up to that two-innings game. It would be clearer if we could read the description of the one-innings game.

[Gary Barnett]

This is from July, 1888:

[Chris Phillips]

This is from July, 1888:

Again, what I'm saying is that people could agree to play a one-innings match, but it would be an exception, because officially cricket was a game of two innings. In particular, we can reasonably assume that matches played by Blandford first eleven against visiting cricket teams will have been planned as full two-innings matches. That is the conclusion that came across very clearly from the newspaper reports I went through. Two-innings matches were the norm.

[Gary Barnett]

Again, what I'm saying is that people could agree to play a one-innings match, but it would be an exception, because officially cricket was a game of two innings. In particular, we can reasonably assume that matches played by Blandford first eleven against visiting cricket teams will have been planned as full two-innings matches. That is the conclusion that came across very clearly from the newspaper reports I went through. Two-innings matches were the norm.

It was really this that I was questioning:

In 1888 the Laws of Cricket did not provide for any such thing as a one-innings game. Cricket was a two-innings game.

Clearly one innings matches were intentionally played, presumably following the Laws of cricket in other respects.

[Chris Phillips]

It was really this that I was questioning:

In 1888 the Laws of Cricket did not provide for any such thing as a one-innings game. Cricket was a two-innings game.

I was quoting what the Laws of Cricket said.

[Gary Barnett]

I was quoting what the Laws of Cricket said.

But cricket wasn’t just a two innings game. The Laws don’t seem to have been universally applied.

[Chris Phillips]

But cricket wasn’t just a two innings game. The Laws don’t seem to have been universally applied.

I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you're suggesting Blandford Cricket Club, in its matches with other clubs such as the Isle of Purbeck, didn't apply the Laws, then that would be relevant. But what I took as by far the clearest message that came out of the newspaper reports was that two-innings matches were the norm for Blandford, and that I doubted they ever set out to play a one-innings match. That was before I realised that the Laws specified two innings. So I really see no reason to doubt it.

[Michael Banks]

I just got this in an email from a friend about a couple of interesting games from the era.



I found an interesting letter from the captain of Northallerton Cricket Club (S.D. Crawford) in the Daily Gazette for Middlesbrough of 12 September 1895:

"Will you kindly allow me a small space to place before the public my reasons for the protest I entered against the result of the Thornaby v Northallerton match in the North Yorkshire League, and I leave them to judge of the facts and the results to which the committee’s decision – adverse to Northallerton – must assuredly lead. I must state at first that Thornaby, going in at two o'clock, were all out in about an hour and twenty minutes for 49, and that Northallerton were all out in about an hour, on a wicket getting more difficult as the day advanced, for 39. I claimed to go on with the match, as I thought there was a reasonable chance of our getting Thornaby out and knocking off the runs. The umpires ordered us to play. Thornaby refused. At five my team took the field, and Law 45, which ends up with the words: “When they shall call 'play' the side refusing to play shall lose the match”, was followed out to the letter. Now, there is no law in the North Yorkshire League to say that one innings each is only to be played; nay, Law 6 says that the matches are to be played under the laws governing one-day matches, the second of which says: “The match, unless played out, shall be decided by the first innings”, clearly pointing to the fact that two innings are expected to be played, if possible. When putting my case before the Committee of the League, the members met it by saying that “one could not expect that two innings could be played between two and seven o'clock;” another, “there was a sort of tacit understanding that one innings each was only expected” and so on. I presume they decided the point upon these surmises, and not upon the laws as drawn up by the N.Y.L and M.C.C. And so, if one team gets out for 25, and another for 26, and there are still, say, three hours to play, the side that has made 26 may refuse to go on playing for fear of being beaten! At least, according to the above decision! I always thought that when a given time for play was I agreed upon— as was in this case, viz, 5 hours- the side that could show up best at the end of the time was to be reckoned winner, but it seems not! -Thanking you in advance, Yours faithfully..."

So we have a 2 innings game beginning at 2pm with the league committee saying that it was unreasonable to expect 2pm until 7pm to have been sufficient time to have played a 2 innings game and that there had been a tacit understanding that only 1 innings would be played. The point that the writer was making of course is that the first innings rule was unfair in that a team that might refuse to play on could gain the result if they had outscored their opponents on the first innings. I think that it was an unfair rule but it was certainly the rule in force.

It also has to be pointed out that with the game beginning at 2pm the first 2 innings (88 runs combined) took only 2hrs and 20 minutes (just to show how quickly these type of innings could take.)

Also, an interesting report of a match between Halesowen and Chaddesley Corbett from the Bromsgrove and Droitwitch Messenger dated 19 May 1894:

"On Bank Holiday the Halesowen fixture was with Chaddesley Corbett, on the latter's ground, and the match proved to be one of the most exciting that it ever fell to the lot of the writer to witness. The home team went to the wickets first, and Gilbert and Dixon ran up a large score, the former knocking off 21 runs and the latter 25. After three hours' play the Chaddesley were dismissed for a total of 72 runs. The visitors sent in Dauglish and Jackson, and before they were parted over 40 runs had been scored. When the 6th wicket fell the visitors required 5 runs to make a win, and this was considered an easy thing, but the next four men failed to secure the necessary number, and amidst great excitement the home team won by 2 runs on the 1st innings. In the 2nd innings Chaddesley retired for 20 runs only. Halesowen had just a bare chance of winning the game, as there was only 18 minutes to play and 23 runs were required. Amidst much excitement time was called when 22 runs had been scored. Each team scored 92 runs in the two innings, Halesowen having five wickets in hand. The home team claim a win on the first innings, but the Halesowen contend that the game resulted in a tie in favour of them. Of course the visitors scored a moral triumph, and they only required one run to make it an actuality. The laws of cricket place it beyond doubt that Chaddesley really won however, for rule 2, as to one-day matches, reads :— "The match, unless played out, shall be decided by the first innings."

What’s strange about this report is that it says “the home team won by 2 runs on the first innings,” before they went on to play the second innings.

This was harsh on Halesowen, to say the least, when they would probably only have needed another couple of minutes of play but within the letter of the law.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

Kindly explain how this gets MJD to London in time for the incident at 3.45 am on 31st August 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris Phillips]

I just got this in an email from a friend about a couple of interesting games from the era.



I found an interesting letter from the captain of Northallerton Cricket Club (S.D. Crawford) in the Daily Gazette for Middlesbrough of 12 September 1895:

"Will you kindly allow me a small space to place before the public my reasons for the protest I entered against the result of the Thornaby v Northallerton match in the North Yorkshire League, and I leave them to judge of the facts and the results to which the committee’s decision – adverse to Northallerton – must assuredly lead. I must state at first that Thornaby, going in at two o'clock, were all out in about an hour and twenty minutes for 49, and that Northallerton were all out in about an hour, on a wicket getting more difficult as the day advanced, for 39. I claimed to go on with the match, as I thought there was a reasonable chance of our getting Thornaby out and knocking off the runs. The umpires ordered us to play. Thornaby refused. At five my team took the field, and Law 45, which ends up with the words: “When they shall call 'play' the side refusing to play shall lose the match”, was followed out to the letter. Now, there is no law in the North Yorkshire League to say that one innings each is only to be played; nay, Law 6 says that the matches are to be played under the laws governing one-day matches, the second of which says: “The match, unless played out, shall be decided by the first innings”, clearly pointing to the fact that two innings are expected to be played, if possible. When putting my case before the Committee of the League, the members met it by saying that “one could not expect that two innings could be played between two and seven o'clock;” another, “there was a sort of tacit understanding that one innings each was only expected” and so on. I presume they decided the point upon these surmises, and not upon the laws as drawn up by the N.Y.L and M.C.C. And so, if one team gets out for 25, and another for 26, and there are still, say, three hours to play, the side that has made 26 may refuse to go on playing for fear of being beaten! At least, according to the above decision! I always thought that when a given time for play was I agreed upon— as was in this case, viz, 5 hours- the side that could show up best at the end of the time was to be reckoned winner, but it seems not! -Thanking you in advance, Yours faithfully..."

So we have a 2 innings game beginning at 2pm with the league committee saying that it was unreasonable to expect 2pm until 7pm to have been sufficient time to have played a 2 innings game and that there had been a tacit understanding that only 1 innings would be played. The point that the writer was making of course is that the first innings rule was unfair in that a team that might refuse to play on could gain the result if they had outscored their opponents on the first innings. I think that it was an unfair rule but it was certainly the rule in force.

It also has to be pointed out that with the game beginning at 2pm the first 2 innings (88 runs combined) took only 2hrs and 20 minutes (just to show how quickly these type of innings could take.)

Also, an interesting report of a match between Halesowen and Chaddesley Corbett from the Bromsgrove and Droitwitch Messenger dated 19 May 1894:

"On Bank Holiday the Halesowen fixture was with Chaddesley Corbett, on the latter's ground, and the match proved to be one of the most exciting that it ever fell to the lot of the writer to witness. The home team went to the wickets first, and Gilbert and Dixon ran up a large score, the former knocking off 21 runs and the latter 25. After three hours' play the Chaddesley were dismissed for a total of 72 runs. The visitors sent in Dauglish and Jackson, and before they were parted over 40 runs had been scored. When the 6th wicket fell the visitors required 5 runs to make a win, and this was considered an easy thing, but the next four men failed to secure the necessary number, and amidst great excitement the home team won by 2 runs on the 1st innings. In the 2nd innings Chaddesley retired for 20 runs only. Halesowen had just a bare chance of winning the game, as there was only 18 minutes to play and 23 runs were required. Amidst much excitement time was called when 22 runs had been scored. Each team scored 92 runs in the two innings, Halesowen having five wickets in hand. The home team claim a win on the first innings, but the Halesowen contend that the game resulted in a tie in favour of them. Of course the visitors scored a moral triumph, and they only required one run to make it an actuality. The laws of cricket place it beyond doubt that Chaddesley really won however, for rule 2, as to one-day matches, reads :— "The match, unless played out, shall be decided by the first innings."

What’s strange about this report is that it says “the home team won by 2 runs on the first innings,” before they went on to play the second innings.

This was harsh on Halesowen, to say the least, when they would probably only have needed another couple of minutes of play but within the letter of the law.

Thanks. Those reports are interesting.

However, for the second one, it's obvious from the report that the home team wasn't declared to have won before the second innings started. Surely the comment in the report just means they won the first innings by 2 runs?

For the first one, I don't understand why your friend thinks there was "certainly" a rule in force that a team could refuse to play and thereby win on the first innings. The whole point of the letter that's quoted is precisely the opposite - that the decision of the league committee contradicted the laws in force. It's difficult to disagree with that, as the laws seem clear.

What it does illustrate is that there could have been an agreement to play only one innings. But we know that in Blandford's case there certainly wasn't a "tacit agreement" to that effect for their matches, because in most of them a second innings was at least started. Maybe people will argue that in some cases they did agree to play a one-innings match for some reason, but I don't see any evidence for it and I'm very sceptical.

And I do think that, as Simon implies, that first report illustrates how difficult it would have been for Druitt to get to London if his game was similar to the one described there (and unless someone can find a later train for him). I think what Druittists need would be an early start and play stopped by bad weather.

[Michael Banks]

Hi Michael,

Kindly explain how this gets MJD to London in time for the incident at 3.45 am on 31st August 1888.

Regards,

Simon

I can’t see where in that post that I claimed that it did Simon. I just thought that it was interesting. The point of the ongoing research on this thread is to see if evidence exists that eliminates Druitt for the Nichols murder. This evidence might or might not exist. As yet, nothing has surfaced to eliminate him. It’s also interesting to note from this thread that the long held assumption, that Leighton was correct and that Druitt had an alibi for Tabram, was incorrect. This shows that we shouldn’t make assumptions before the facts are known.

[Michael Banks]

Thanks. Those reports are interesting.

However, for the second one, it's obvious from the report that the home team wasn't declared to have won before the second innings started. Surely the comment in the report just means they won the first innings by 2 runs?

In the second game Chris the reporter says:

. When the 6th wicket fell the visitors required 5 runs to make a win

So he’s talking about Halesowen looking to win the game on the first innings before the first innings had even been completed and before any thought of the possibility of anything causing the game to be reduced in length.

For the first one, I don't understand why your friend thinks there was "certainly" a rule in force that a team could refuse to play and thereby win on the first innings. The whole point of the letter that's quoted is precisely the opposite - that the decision of the league committee contradicted the laws in force. It's difficult to disagree with that, as the laws seem clear.

I think that you’ve misunderstood Chris. My friend doesn’t think that. The man who wrote the letter (and who spoke to the committee) felt that the rule was unfair and that North Allerton should have been awarded the game because Thornaby refused to play on. There’s no doubt that the rule was in force but what he’s saying is that, as the game showed, a team with a lead after the first innings could refuse to play and be declared winners of the game on the first innings. The reporter is saying, correctly it appears, the team that refused to play on (Thornaby) should have been considered to have conceded the game. What actually happened though was that they won the game on the first innings rule. Which was unfair.

The first innings rule was definitely in place but it wasn’t a fair rule. That’s why it isn’t used today. Not only might a team refuse to play on (like Thornaby) but a team with a first innings lead, who can see that rain could come at any time, might be tempted to play for time by taking no risks in chasing runs, knowing that when the rain comes they’ll win.

What it does illustrate is that there could have been an agreement to play only one innings. But we know that in Blandford's case there certainly wasn't a "tacit agreement" to that effect for their matches, because in most of them a second innings was at least started. Maybe people will argue that in some cases they did agree to play a one-innings match for some reason, but I don't see any evidence for it and I'm very sceptical.

I don’t know about one innings games in that era Chris so I’m in the dark on that one. In our game though the evidence that we have certainly favours a 2 innings game cut short.

And I do think that, as Simon implies, that first report illustrates how difficult it would have been for Druitt to get to London if his game was similar to the one described there (and unless someone can find a later train for him). I think what Druittists need would be an early start and play stopped by bad weather.

From my viewpoint Chris we have two teams scoring 88 runs in 2 hours and 20 minutes. Now, innings could certainly take longer than this to score the same amount of runs but I’m confident that two innings accruing those runs could also have been completed in less.

But…. if it could be proven that the game started at 2.00 then it would have to be conceded that this would make it less likely that Druitt could have made the 4.55 train. If it started to rain when Purbeck had reached 62 (and that it was around 4.00 say) they surely wouldn’t have immediately called off the game? They would have waited for a period to see if the rain stopped allowing them to play on. Perhaps 20 or 30 minutes? The problem is of course that we’ve seen games beginning as early as 12.00.

[Chris Phillips]

From my viewpoint Chris we have two teams scoring 88 runs in 2 hours and 20 minutes. Now, innings could certainly take longer than this to score the same amount of runs but I’m confident that two innings accruing those runs could also have been completed in less.

But…. if it could be proven that the game started at 2.00 then it would have to be conceded that this would make it less likely that Druitt could have made the 4.55 train. If started to rain when Purbeck had reached 62 (and that it was around 4.00 say) they surely wouldn’t have immediately called off the game. They would have waited for a period to see if the rain stopped allowing them to play on. Perhaps 20 or 30 minutes? The problem is of course that we’ve seen games beginning as early as 12.00.

Michael

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with what you say.

Regarding the first match, the writer of the letter is quoting chapter and verse from the Laws of Cricket, and he is saying that Northallerton should have been declared the winners when Thornaby refused to play (under Law 45). He is not in the least acknowledging that the Laws allowed Thornaby to refuse to play when told to play by the umpires. He is not saying the Laws are unfair. He is saying that the decision of the League Committee went against the Laws.

Regarding the second match, "the visitors required 5 runs to make a win" must mean to win the first innings. Winning the first innings did eventually result in winning the game, but only because the second innings wasn't completed. At the point when the first innings was completed, the winner of the game had clearly not been decided yet.