• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

New Cricket Trivia - 'SJS format'

archie mac

International Coach
Well no, not exactly.

In the first code of laws, in 1774: it simply said, with regard to umpires:

To allow 2 minutes for each man to come in when one is out, and 10 minutes between Each Hand to mark the Ball, that it may not be changed. They are sole judges of all outs and ins, of all fair and unfair Play, of frivolous delays, of all hurts, whether real or pretended, and are discretionally to allow whatever time they think Proper before the Game goes on again. In case of a real hurt to a striker, they are to allow another to come in, and the Person hurt to come in again, but are not to allow a fresh Man to Play on either side on any Account. They are sole judges of all hindrances, crossing the Players in running, and Standing unfair to Strike, and in case of hindrance may order a notch to be scored. They are not to order any man out unless appealed to by one of the Players. These Laws are to the Umpires Jointly. Each Umpire is the Sole Judge of all Nips and Catches, Ins and Outs, good or bad runs at his own Wicket, and his determination shall be absolute, and he shall not be changed for another Umpire without the Consent of both Sides. When the 4 Balls are bowled he is to call over. These Laws are seperately. When both Umpires shall call Play 3 Times, tis at the Peril of giving the Game from them that refuses Play.


Then by 1884, we have something rather interesting:

Law 51 No umpire shall be allowed to bet.
Law 52 No Umpire shall be changed during a match, unless with the consent of both sides, except in case of violation of Law 51; then either side may dismiss him.



It's not until the 2000 code, that there is mention of a replacement standing only at the striker's end.

So short answer, archie: No:dry:
Very interesting mate, thanks for that:cool:
 

stumpski

International Captain
Who made 198 in a benefit match for one of the opposing XI, hitting the unfortunate bowler for three straight 6s in the process?
 

stumpski

International Captain
Yes ... and I would say yes - useful lower-order bat, but first and foremost a bowler.

My question didn't make it very clear that the bowler was the beneficiary, but I think you gathered that.
 

stumpski

International Captain
Yes indeed - Closey and Locky, not altogether dissimilar ...

Both fiery, confrontational left-handers (although Close bowled, and Lock batted, right-handed); both played for England, although seldom at the same time; both renowned short-leg fielders; and both played their last Tests against West Indies, by which time time each had found success with a second county.

Over to you then ...
 

stumpski

International Captain
Ooh, I think I know this one - I won't jump in straightaway though. At first I thought of WG Grace stemming the wound of a player who'd been impaled on railings, I think it's rather more recent than that though.
 

stumpski

International Captain
Which test match captain helped save the life of another test match captain and what was it he did to help?
Well no-one else seems to be nibbling, so I'll go with what I think it is ... Frank Worrell was among those who gave blood to help India's Nari Contractor when the latter was laid out (by Charlie Griffith, wasn't it?) in a 1961 Test in the West Indies. I haven't checked the details as you can tell, but I think I'm right in saying that Contractor never played another Test.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Completely correct David - Apparently four people gave blood of whom Worrell gave by far the most - I don't understand anything about the medical issues involved but it seems strange that the best part of 50 years on from being saved by Worrell's blood that Nari is still with us yet within 6 years leukaemia had claimed Worrell's life
 

stumpski

International Captain
I was going to make that very point if you hadn't. As a regular blood donor myself it's a subject close to my heart.

I don't have a question to hand but will post one when I'm home tomorrow morning, if no-one else has slipped one in beforehand.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I was going to make that very point if you hadn't. As a regular blood donor myself it's a subject close to my heart.

I don't have a question to hand but will post one when I'm home tomorrow morning, if no-one else has slipped one in beforehand.
Okay here is an easy "filler" :)

What do Johnny Briggs, Lohmann, Lindwall and Statham have in common ?
 

Top