ncluding
representative M.C.C., county and university matches, is quite
different from any other--partly because the results are universally
regarded as more important, partly _because certain obligations
towards the spectators have to be taken into consideration.
The last point applies equally to any match which people pay to come
to see_. . . . With regard to gate-money matches. The captains of
the two sides engaged are, during the match, responsible for
everything in connection with it. _They are under an obligation to
the public to see that the match is played in such a way as the
public has a reasonable right to expect_.'"

"And pray," demanded Verinder, "what are these 'obligations towards the
spectators,' and 'reasonable rights' of the public?"

"Well, I suppose the public can reasonably demand punctuality in starting
play; a moderate interval for luncheon and between innings; and that
stumps shall not be drawn, nor the match abandoned, before the time
arranged, unless circumstances make it absolutely necessary."

"And who is to be judge of these circumstances."

"The captain, I suppose."

"In theory, yes; but he has to satisfy the crowd. It is the crowd's
'reasonable right' to be satisfied; and by virtue of it the crowd becomes
the final judge. It allows the captain to decide, but will barrack him if
displeased with his decision. Moreover, you have given me examples to
illustrate this 'reasonable right,' but you have not defined it.
Now I want to know precisely how far it extends, and where it ceases.
Does Ranjitsinhji provide this definition?"

"No," said I; "I cannot find that he does."

"To be sure he does not; and for the simple reason that these claims on
the side of the public are growing year by year. Already no one can say
how much they cover, and assuredly no one can say where they are likely to
stop. You observe that our author includes even University matches under
the head of exhibition cricket, in which obligations towards the
spectators have to be taken into account. You remember the scene at
Lord's in 1893 when Wells purposely bowled no-balls; and again in 1896
when Shine bowled two no-balls to the boundary and then a ball which went
for four byes, the object in each case being to deprive Oxford of the
follow-on. This policy was hotly discussed; and luckily the discussion
spent itself on the question whether play could be at the sam