Clipping:An ineligible player 2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, June 1, 1873 |
|---|---|
| Text | The Resolute Club, of Elizabeth, visited Philadelphia last week to play the Philadelphia and Athletic Clubs. By the former they were defeated 9 to 2, and by the latter 11 to 2. But owing to a violation of the rules the former game is null and void. The cause of this was the playing of Wadsworth in the Resolute nine, on May 27, he having played in the Philadelphia nine April 8 against the Villanova Club. The rule is explicit on this point. New York Sunday Mercury June 1, 1873 Mr. Chadwick makes some remarkably illogical statements, and the last that he has got off is a good specimen. He states in the Brooklyn Eagle that because Wadsworth played with the Philadelphia nine against the Villanova nine on April 8th he is consequently ineligible to play with any nine before June 8th, and that accordingly the game of Monday last between the Resolute and Philadelphia clubs is null and void, and doesn’t not count as a victory. The standing of Wadsworth, it is true, is impaired until the sixty days elapses, but it is in this case a forfeiture by the Resolutes. The case of Hastings in the Rockford-Athletic controversy of 1871 was precisely similar, and the Rockfords coming under the penalty lost two victories by forfeiture. That was all the law required. It was never made to hurt a non-offender. Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch June 1, 1873 |
| Source | New York Sunday Mercury |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />