Boundaries

[AndrewB]

I was reading "Wisden on Grace" recently, and it notes that in Grace's early career there were no boundary 4s and 6s, with everything being run out. Does anyone know when this changed? The 1884 Laws say the umpires will "arrange boundaries where necessary, and the allowances to be made for them", so presumably by or before then, but I can't find the previous (1835) Laws, or any revisions made to them, online.

(Incidentally, this rather vague description survived right through to the 1947 re-write, when it becomes "The customary allowance for a boundary is 4 runs, but it is usual to allow 6 runs for all hits pitching over and clear of the boundary line or fence")

 

[fredfertang]

There doesn't seem to have been a fixed date and according to Gerald Brodribb they only started as a means of controlling spectators - there's a record of an 1839 match with one, but he says they didn't mark them at Lord's until the 1880s

 

[jimmy101]

Ive seen a few paintings and sketches fron the time that depicted the crowd huddling right around the playing area. Establishing boundaries as a means of crowd control sounds about right.

Would have most likely differed from ground to ground, too, depending on location

 

[mr_mister]

Do we know who hit the first ever test maximum

 

[the big bambino]

At the risk of being thought to suspiciously know too much about cricket in the 1800s, I see Charlie Bannerman hit one in Australia's 2nd innings of the 2nd ever test in 1876/77 season. As no sixes were recorded in the 1st test and this one the first in the second test I'd say that was it. Bannerman also hit test cricket's first hundred. Trailblazer.

 

[tony p]

don't know about 4s but up until 1910 you had to hit the ball out of the ground for a 6 , otherwise it was just a 4.

jessop in 1907 scored 191 at hastings, including 5 out of the ground as well as 11 others over the boundary that were only given as 4. if he had of played that innings in 1910 he would have scored 213. ( scored in 90 minutes as well, would have minded seeing that either)

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Technically speaking, 6 was the amount given for a lost ball under law 34:

If a ball in play cannot be found or recovered, any fieldsman may call "Lost ball," when the ball shall be "dead;" six runs shall be added to the score; but if more than six runs have been run before "Lost ball" has been called, as many runs as have been run shall be scored.

and that is the only prescribed score given in the 1884 version of the Laws.

As AndrewB said, the laws were otherwise silent on the amounts, and it seems to have been a matter of convention varying from place-to-place and even match-to-match, being six, five or even four for one clearing the boundary. Charles Davis discusses it here (21 March 2014) (he mentions it elsewhere too, but this is the only place I could find quickly). However, unless the versions on Cricinfo are incomplete, there was not an actual change in the laws, but rather a standardisation of the "allowances" mentioned. The 1947 laws relegate it to notes even as of 1970, and even the 1980 laws state:

Before the toss for innings, the Umpires shall agree with both Captains the runs to be allowed for boundaries, and in deciding the allowance for them, the Umpires and Captains shall be guided by the prevailing custom of the ground. The allowance for a boundary shall normally be 4 runs, and 6 runs for all hits pitching over and clear of the boundary line or fence

Even the current laws allow leeway:

19.6.1 Before the toss the umpires shall determine the runs to be allowed for boundaries with both captains. In deciding the allowances the umpires and captains shall be guided by the prevailing custom of the ground.

19.6.2 Unless determined differently under 19.6.1, 6 runs shall be allowed for a boundary 6; and 4 runs for a boundary 4. See also 19.7.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not answering the question (far be it for a thread to go off track), but I remember during the Oval Test in 1975 they were using the whole playing area without boundary ropes. On at least one occasion the fielder (Barry Wood in the instance I remember) chased the ball to the boundary edge and such was the size of the playing area the batsman had time to run 5 without overthrows.

 

[sledger]

GIMH very familiar with boundaries iirc. Women make them very clear as soon as he approaches I hear.

 

[AndrewB]

Not answering the question (far be it for a thread to go off track), but I remember during the Oval Test in 1975 they were using the whole playing area without boundary ropes. On at least one occasion the fielder (Barry Wood in the instance I remember) chased the ball to the boundary edge and such was the size of the playing area the batsman had time to run 5 without overthrows.

IIRC, in Brearley's book of the 1978-9 Ashes tour, he reckoned he ran out Bairstow in the 5th ODI at the MCG while going for a sixth run.

 

[AndrewB]

At the risk of being thought to suspiciously know too much about cricket in the 1800s, I see Charlie Bannerman hit one in Australia's 2nd innings of the 2nd ever test in 1876/77 season. As no sixes were recorded in the 1st test and this one the first in the second test I'd say that was it. Bannerman also hit test cricket's first hundred. Trailblazer.

Charles Davis's ball-by-ball account has a 5 by Bannerman in the 2nd Test but no sixes (by him or anyone else).

 

[the big bambino]

Charles Davis's ball-by-ball account has a 5 by Bannerman in the 2nd Test but no sixes (by him or anyone else).

Fair point and I had my suspicions when people began posting brief histories regarding the value of boundaries. All I did was look up the scorecards of the first two tests on cricinfo and it registered a six against Bannerman's name. There was also another for Happy Jack Ulyett but that was in the innings after Bannerman's. I suspect cricinfo haven't adjusted their boundary column in their scorecards to reflect the value of the hit at that particular time. If it came to a decision between the two I'd certainly trust Davis over cricinfo scorecards.