Enhanced Search

In his Confessions, Augustine of Hippo - later St. Augustine - recalls his youth in Northern Africa, where his father served as a Roman official. "I was disobedient, not because I chose something better than [my parents and elders] chose for me, but simply from the love of games. For I liked to score a fine win at sport or to have my ears tickled by the make-believe of the stage." [Book One, chapter 10] In Book One, chapter 9, Augustine had explained that "we enjoyed playing games and were punished for them by men who played games themselves. However, grown up games are known as 'business. . . . Was the master who beat me himself very different from me? If he were worsted by a colleague in some petty argument, he would be convulsed in anger and envy, much more so than I was when a playmate beat me at a game of ball."

Henderson: "The testimony of Beleth and Durandus, both eminently qualified witnesses, clearly indicates that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the ball had found a place for itself in the Easter celebrations of the Church." In fact, Beleth and Durandus had both opposed the practice, seeing it as the intrusion of pagan rites into church rites. "There are some Churches in which it is customary for the Bishops and Archbishops to play in the monasteries with those under them, even to stoop to the game of ball" [Beleth, 1165]. "In certain places in our country, prelates play games with their own clerics on Easter in the cloisters, or in the Episcopal Palaces, even so far as to descend to the game of ball" [Durandus, 1286].

Note: This source appears to be Henderson, Robert W., Ball, Bat and Bishop: The Origins of Ball Games [Rockport Press, 1947], pp. 37-38. Page 37 refers to an 1165 prohibition and page 38 mentions 12^th and 13^th Century Easter rites. Henderson identifies two sources for the page 38 statement: Beleth, J., "Rationale Divinorum Officiorum," in Migne, J. P., Patrologiae Curius Completus, Ser 2, Vol. 106, pp. 575-591 [Paris, 1855], and Durandus, G., "Rationale Divinorum Officiorum," Book VI, Ch 86, Sect. 9 [Rome, 1473]...Henderson does not say that these rites involved the use of sticks.

"Stoolball was played in England as early as 1330, when William Pagula, Vicar of Winkfield, near Windsor, wrote in Latin a poem of instructions to parish priests, advising them to forbid the playing of all games of ball in churchyards: "Bats and bares and suche play/Out of chyrche-yorde put away."

Henderson, Robert W., Ball, Bat and Bishop: The Origins of Ball Games [Rockport Press, 1947], p. 74. Note: The Vicar's caution was translated in 1450 by a Canon, John Myrc. Henderson's ref 120 is Mirk [sic], J., "Instructions to Parish Priests," Early English Text Society, Old Series 31, p. 11 [London, 1868]. A contemporary of Myrc in 1450 evidently identified the Vicar's targets as including stoolball. Block [p. 165] identifies the original author as William de Pagula. Writing in 1886, T. L. Kington Oliphant identifies "bares" as prisoner's base: "There is the term "bace pleye," whence must come the "prisoner's base;" this in Myrc had appeared as the game of "bares." Kington Oliphant does not elaborate on this claim, and does not comment on the accompanying term "bats" in the original. The 1886 reference was provided by John Thorn, 2/24/2008

Edward III wrote to the Sheriff of Kent, and evidently sheriffs throughout England. Noting a relative neglect of the useful art of archery, the King said he was thereby, on festival days, "forbidding, all and single, on our orders, to toy in any way with these games of throwing stones, wood, or iron, playing handball, football, "stickball," or hockey, . . . which are worthless, under pain of imprisonment." The translator uses "stickball" as a translation of the Latin "pila cacularis," and suggests that it might have been an early form of cricket. We might also ask whether it was referring to early stoolball.

A. R. Myers, English Historical Documents (Routledge, 1996), page 1203. [Viewed online 10/16/08]. Provided in email from John Thorn, 2/27/2008. Myers' citation is "Rymer, Foedera, III, ii, from Close Roll, 37 Edward III [Latin]."

Caveat: The content of this entry resembles that of #1365.1 below, and both refer to a restriction imposed by Edward III. However that entry, stemming from Strutt, refers to "club-ball" instead of "stick-ball," and identifies the Latin as "pilam bacculoream," not "pila cacularis." It is possible that both refer to the same source. Strutt’s text reads: “The recreations prohibited by proclamation in the reign of Edward III., exclusive of the games of chance, are thus specified; throwing of stones, wood, or iron….” The accompanying footnote reads: “Pilam manualtm, ptdinam, el bacculoream, et ad cambucam, etc.” Also: the letter to Kent is elsewhere dated 1365, which could be consistent with Edward III's 37^th year under the crown, but Myers uses 1363.

Note: this entry replaced the former entry #1365.1: "In 1365 the sheriffs had to forbid able-bodied men playing ball games as, instead, they were to practice archery on Sundays and holidays." Source: Hassall, W. O., [compiler], "How They Lived: An Anthology of Original Accounts Written Before 1485" [Blackwell, Oxford University Press, 1962], page 285. Submitted by John Thorn, 10/12/2004.

"The recreations prohibited by proclamation in the reign of Edward III, exclusive of the games of chance, are thus specified; the throwing of stones, wood, or iron; playing at hand-ball, foot-ball, club-ball, and camucam, which I take to have been a species of goff . . . ." Edward III reigned from 1327 to 1377. The actual term for "club-ball" in the proclamation was, evidently, "bacculoream."

This appears to be one of only two direct references to "club-ball" in the literature. See #1794.2, below.

Caveat: David Block argues that, contrary to Strutt's contention [see #1801.1, below], club ball may not be the common ancestor of cricket and other ballgames. See David Block, Baseball Before We Knew It, pages 105-107 and 183-184. Block says that "pilam bacculoream" translates as "ball play with a stick or staff." Note: We seem not to really know what "camucam" was. Nor, of course, how club ball was played, since the term could have denoted a form of tennis or field hockey or and early form of stoolball or cricket. Edward II had issued a ban of his own in 1314, regarding football.

A Westminster statute, made to curb gambling by rowdy soldiers upon their return from battle, reportedly imposed sanctions for "playing at cloish, ragle, half-bowls, handyn and handoute, quekeborde, and if any person permits even others to play at such games in his house or yard, he is to be imprisoned for three years; as also he who plays at such game, to forfeit ten pounds to the king, and be imprisoned for two years."

Observations Upon the Statutes, Chiefly the More Ancient, from Magna Charta to the Twenty-first [Year] of James the First, etc. (Daines Barrington, London, 1766), page 335.

The author adds: "This is, perhaps, the most severe law which has ever been made in any country against gaming, and some of the forbidden sports seem to have been manly exercises, particularly the handing and handoute, which I should suppose to be a kind of cricket, as the term hands is still retained in that game [for what would later be known as innings].

An1864 writer expands further: "Half-bowls was played with pins and one-half of a sphere of wood, upon the floor of a room. It is said to be still played in Hertfordshire under the name of rolly-polly. Hand-in and hand-out was a ring-game, played by boys and girls, like kissing-ring [footnote 31]." John Harland, A Volume of Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester in the Sixteenth Century (Chetham Society, 1864), p 34. Accessed 1/27/10 via Google Books search ("court leet" half-bowls). "Roly-poly" and hand-in/hand-out are sometimes later described as having running/plugging features preserved in cat games and early forms of base ball. Thus, these prohibitions may or may not include games resembling baseball. Query: Can residents of Britain help us understand this ancient text?

An Act of Parliament forbade unlawful games as conducive to disorder and as discouraging the practice of archery. The games that were forbidden, under penalty of two years' imprisonment or a fine of ten pounds, were these: quoits, football, closh, kails, half-bowls, hand-in and hand-out, chequer-board.

This Act is cited as Rot. Parl. VI, 188. Information provided by John Thorn, email of 2/27/2008.

Caveat: The list of proscribed games is similar to the Edward III's prohibition [see #1363.1 above] adding "hand-in and hand-out" in place of a game translated as "club-ball" or "stick-ball." We are uncertain as to whether hand-in and hand-out is the ancestor of a safe-haven game.

"Certain types of ball games had a prominent place in heathen rituals and were believed to promote fertility. Even after Christianity had gained the ascendancy over the older religion, ball continued to be played in the churchyard and even within the church at certain times. In France, ball was played in churches at Easter, until the custom was abolished in 1538. In England, the practice persisted up to a much later date."

The abolition in France is attributed to an act of the French Parlement. 

"Whereas this a great abuse in a game or games used in the town called "Gede Gadye or the Cat's Pallet, and Typing or hurling the Ball," - that no mannor person shall play at the same games, being above the age of seven years, wither in the churchyard or in any of the streets of this town, upon pain of every person so playing being imprisoned in the Doungeon for the space of two hours; or else every person so offending to pay 6 [pence] for every time. And if they have not [wherewithal] to pay, then the parents or masters of such persons so offending to pay the said 6 [pence] or to suffer the like imprisonment." (Similar language is found in 1579 entry [page 148], but it lacked the name "Typing" and did not mention a ball.)

John Harland, editor, Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester in the Sixteenth Century (Chetham Society, 1864), page 156. Accessed 1/27/10 via Google Books search: "court leet" half-bowls. Note: The game gidigadie is not known to us, but the 1864 editor notes elsewhere (page 149, footnote 61) that was "not unlikely" to be tip-cat, and he interprets "typing" as tipping. As later described [see "Tip-Cat" and "Pallet" at http://retrosheet.org/Protoball/Glossary.htm], tip-cat could be played with a cat or a ball, and could involve running among holes as bases. Caveat: we do not yet know what the nature of the proscribed game was in Elizabethan times.

Reacting to Puritans' denunciations of Sabbath recreations, James I in 1617 listed a large number of permitted Sunday activities -including no ball games - and cited as unlawful only "beare and Bull beatinge enterludes & bowlinge. . . ." Axon, Ernest, Notes of Proceedings. Volume 1 - 1616-1622-3 (Printed for the Record Society for the Publication of Original Documents, 1901), page xxvi. There was adverse reaction to this proclamation, which is said to have surprised the King.

Another source lists the Sunday bans as "Bull-baiting, bear-baiting, interludes, and bowls:" Keightley, Thomas, The History of England, volume II (Whittaker and Co., London, 1839), page 321. One chruchman listed "bear-baiting, bull-baiting, common plays, and bowling:" Marsden, J. B., History of Christian Churches and Sects (Richard Bentley, London, 1856), page 269. Thus, unless "enterludes" then connoted a range of games or "common plays" that included ballplay, contemporary ballgames like stoolball and cricket - and cat games - remained unconstrained.

In October 1656 Director-General Peter Stuyvesant announced a stricter Sabbath Law in New Netherlands, including fine of a one pound Flemish for "playing ball," . . . cricket, tennis, ninepins, dancing, drinking, etc.

Simon Rae writes that the "killjoy mentality reached its zenith under the Puritans, during the Interregnum, achieving an absurd peak when cricket was banned in Ireland in 1656 even though the Irish didn't play it." Evidently, hurling was mistaken for cricket.

Simon Rae, It's Not Cricket: A History of Skulduggery, Sharp Practice and Downright Cheating in the Noble Game (Faber and Faber, 2001), page 46. Note: Rae does not document this event.

(summarizing rules of the Sabbath in the New Netherland colony)

" . . . exercises and amusement, drinking {themselves} drunk, frequenting taverns or taphouses, dancing, playing cards, ticktacken {backgammon}, balslaen {literally: "hitting the ball"}, clossen {bowling}, kegelen {nine pins}, going boating, traveling with barges, carts, or wagons, before, between, or during the Holy worship."

Note: one translator used the term "cricket" for "balslaen."

The Mayor and Aldermen of New York that none should "att any Time hereafter willfully or obstinately prophane the Sabbath daye by . . . Playinge att Cards Dice Tables or any other Vnlawful Games whatsoeuer," banning "alsoe the disorderly Assemblyes of Children In ye Streets and other Places To the disturbance of Others with Noyse." Consequences? "Ye Person or Persons soe found drinkinge Gameing or Playing Either in Priuate or Publicke Shall forfeict Tenn Guildrs for Euery such offence." Note that ballplaying was not specifically prohibited.  

"Close of the 17^th century: . . . The Common was always a playground for boys - wicket and flinging of the bullit was much enjoyed . . . . No games were allowed to be played on the Sabbath, and a fine of five shillings was imposed on the owner of any horse seen on the Common on that day. People were not even to stroll on the Common, during the warm weather, on Sunday."

"Turning now from these serious offences against public order, we find accounts of numerous violations common to most communities, even at the present day. These acts varied in the degree of their gravity. From the court records we learn of such minor offenders as Joseph and Edward Anderson, who were arrested for grievously assaulting a watchman who was marching them to the guard house ''for playing with a bat and ball during the time of divine service.''

(Thanks to Tom Dyja for reporting  this very early evidence.)

Dartmouth College's founding president Eleazar Wheelock thought his students should "turn the course of their diversions and exercises for their health, to the practice of some manual arts, or cultivation of gardens and other lands at the proper hours of leisure." That would be "more useful" than the tendency of some non-Dartmouth students to engage in "that which is puerile, such as playing with balls, bowls and other ways of diversion."

"WHEREAS as iit often happens that many disorders are occasioned within the town of Portsmouth . . . by boys and fellows playing with balls in the public street: . . . [when] there is danger of breaking the windows of any building, public or private, may be ordered to remove to any place where there shall be no such danger."

"If any student shall play ball or use any other diversion that exposes the College or hall windows within three rods of either he shall be fined two shillings . . . " In 1782 the protected area was extended to six rods.

-- Dartmouth College, 1779.

"[The college] yard is intended for the exercise and recreation of the youth . . . [but don't] "play ball against any of the wall of the University, whilst the windows are open."

"It appearing that a play at present much practiced by the smaller boys . . . with balls and sticks," the faculty of Princeton University prohibits such play on account of its being dangerous as well as "low and unbecoming gentlemen students."

In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, in order to promote the safety of the exterior of the newly built meeting house, particularly the windows, a by-law is enacted to bar "any game of wicket, cricket, baseball, batball, football, cats, fives, or any other game played with ball," within eighty yards of the structure. However, the letter of the law did not exclude the city's lovers of muscular sport from the tempting lawn of "Meeting-House Common." This is the first indigenous instance of the game of baseball being referred to by that name on the North American continent. It is spelled herein as bafeball. "Pittsfield is baseball's Garden of Eden," said Pittsfield Mayor James Ruberto.

An account of this find (a re-find, technically) is at John Thorn, "1791 and All That: Baseball and the Berkshires," Base Ball: A Journal of the Early Game, Volume 1, Number 1 (Spring 2007) pp. 119-126. 

See also http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1799618.

"Both the meeting-house and the Court House suffered considerable damage, especially to their windows by ball playing in the streets, consequently in 1791, a by-law was enacted by which 'foot ball, hand ball, bat ball and or any other game of ball was prohibited within ten rods of the Court House easterly or twenty rods of the Meeting House southwesterly, neither shall they throw any stones at or over the said Meeting House on a penalty of 5s, one half to go to the complainant and the rest to the town.'"

In March 1795 Portsmouth NH imposed a  fine of from 50 cents to $3.30 pus court costs for those who "play cricket or any game in which a ball is used."  

A long list of punishable offenses at Deerfield included six cents for "playing ball near school." This was a minor fine, the same sanction as getting a drop of tallow on a book, tearing a page of a book, or leaving one's room during study. In contrast, a one dollar assessment was made for playing cards, backgammon, or checkers, or walking or visiting on Saturday night or Sunday.

.

"Voted and ordered, that if any person shall play at foot-ball, cricket,or any other play or game with a ball or balls in any of the streets, lanes, or alleys of this town, . . ." a fine of 25 cents to one dollar was to be assessed.

Gilbert, Tom, Baseball and the Color Line [Franklin Watts, NY, 1995], p.38. Per Millen, note # 15.

"An ordinance to preserve the turf or soil on the parade, and to regulate the sale of lamb in the city, and also to prevent boys playing ball or hoop on Warren or Front streets, passed the 14^th June, 1800."

Hudson [NY] Bee, April 19, 1803. Found by John Thorn, who lives 30 minutes south of the town: email of 2/17/2008.

"To prevent, as far as possible, the damages before enumerated, viz. breaking of glass, &c. the students in College and members of the Academy shall not be permitted to play at ball or use any other sport or diversion in or near the College-building." [A first offense brought a fine, a second offense brought suspension.]

-- The Laws of Middlebury College, 1803.

". . . the students in the College and scholars in the Grammar School, shall not be permitted to play at ball, or use any other sport or diversion, in or near the College Edifice, by which the same may be exposed to injury."

[A] "[N]o person shall play at the game of bat and ball or shall strike any ball with a bat or other machine in the streets, lanes, or squares of the town on penalty of fifty cents."

[B] "It is ordered by the town, That no person shall play at the game of bat and ball, or shall strike any ball with a bat or other machine, or throw any stones, brickbats, clubs or snow balls, in the streets, lanes, or squares of the town, on penalty of fifty cents for each offence [sic]."

"High Street, at Hopkins's Corner, was the favorite battle-ground for ball-players, as early as 1805."

"Ball-playing seems to have been extensively practiced in 1820. At the town meeting that year, it was voted 'that the game of ball, and the pitching of quoits within [a specified area] be prohibited."

Joseph Williamson, History of the City of Belfast (Loring Short and Harmon, Portland, 1877), page 764. Accessed 2/2/10 via Google Books search ("hopkins's corner" ball).

"Parents and Guardians are also requested to forbid, those under their care, playing Ball in the streets of the town; as by this unlawful practice much inconvenience and injury is sustained." Newburyport [MA] Herald, May 4, 1813, Volume 17, Issue 10, page 1 [classified advertisement]. Submitted by John Thorn 1/24/07. Newburyport MA is about 35 miles north of Boston and near the New Hampshire border.

Dartmouth College in Hanover NH had a religious society, the Religiosi. "In April, 1815, at one of the meetings, a 'conversation was held on the propriety, or rather the impropriety, of professed [Christians - bracketed in original] joining in the common amusement of ballplaying with the students for exercise.'" Shortly thereafter "there were many spirited remarks on the subject of nocturnal cowhunting, and the society was unanimous in condemning it." John King Lord, A History of Dartmouth College 1815-1909 (Rumford Press, Concord NH, 1913), page 564. Accessed 11/16/2008 via Google Books search of "'history of Dartmouth.'" Note: Did they condone diurnal cowhunting?

On June 6, 1816, trustees of the Village of Cooperstown, New York enacted an ordinance: "Be it Ordained That no person shall play at Ball in Second or West Street (now Pioneer and Main Streets), in this village, under a penalty of one dollar, for each and every offence."

"[S]uch regulations as will prevent the playing Ball and Hoops in the public Streets  . . . a practice so frequent and dangerous, that has occasioned many great and repeated complaints."

"[N]o person or persons shall play ball, beat, knock or drive any ball or hoop, in, through, or along any street or alley in the first, second, third, or fourth wards of said city; and every person who shall violate either of the prohibitions . . . shall, for each and every such offense, forfeit and pay the penalty of ten dollars."

"[A]ny person who shall be convicted of sliding down any hill on sleighs, sleds, or boards . . . between Thomas Hinkley's dwelling house & Mr. Vaugh's mill . . . or any who shall play at ball or quoits in any of the streets . . . shall, on conviction, pay a fine of fifty cents for each offence . . . ."

Hallowell [ME] Gazette, December 25, 1816. Hallowell is about 2 miles south of Augusta and 50 miles NE of Portland.

"No student shall, in or near any College building, play at ball, or use any sport or diversion, by which such building may be exposed to injury, on penalty of being fined not exceeding twenty cents, or being suspended if the offence be often repeated."

"Although playing ball games near the barracks was prohibited, cadets could play 'at football' near Fort Clinton or north of the large boulder neat the site of the present Library. [Benjamin] Latrobe makes curious mention of a game call 'baseball' played in this area. Unfortunately, he did not describe the game. Could it be that cadets in the 1818-1822 period played the game that Abner Doubleday may have modified later to become the present sport?"

Pappas, George S., To The Point: The United States Military Academy 1802 - 1902 [Praeger, Westport Connecticut, 1993], page 145. Note: Pappas evidently does not give a source for the Latrobe statement. I assume that the 1818-1822 dates correspond to Latrobe's time at West Point.

The Baltimore Patriot, March 4, 1820, reprints a city ordinance banning "play[ing] bandy or at ball" on Sunday. 

The Schenectady City Council banned "playing of Ball against the Building or in the area fronting the Building called City Hall and belonging to this corporation . . . under penalty of Fifty cents for each and every offence . . . ." Note: citation needed. Submitted by David Pietrusza via John Thorn, 3/6/2005.

"Any person, who shall, after the first day of July next, play at ball, or fly a kite, or run down a hill upon a sled, or play any other sport which may incommode peacable citizens and passengers in any [illegible: street?] of that part of town commonly called the Village of Bedford" faces a fifty-cent penalty.

"By-Laws for the Town of New-Bedford," New Bedford [MA] Mercury, August 13, 1821. Accessed by subscription search May 5, 2009.

"The rules for Geneva Hall in 1822 are still preserved. The residents were not allowed to cut or saw firewood, or play ball or quoits, in front of the building."

Warren Hunting Smith, Hobart and William Smith; the History of Two Colleges (Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva NY, 1972. Provided by Priscilla Astifan, email of 2/4/2008.

The Eastport Sentinel, May 26, 1830 reprints the town's 1822 By-Laws, which ban playing "bat and ball" under penalty of a 50 cent fine.

 An 1822 bylaw levied a fine to anyone who would “play at ball, fly a kite or run down hill upon a sled… in any street of that part of the town commonly called the Village of New-Bedford”. Thomas Rodman wrote about being “initiated into the mysteries of Foot-ball, Base and every game boys pursue” when he was a student at Friends Academy in the mid-1830s.

"The Town of Providence have passed a law against playing ball in any of their public streets; the fine is $2. Why is not the law enforced in this Town? Newport Mercury, April 26, 1823, Vol. 62, Issue 3185, page 2. Submitted by John Thorn 1/24/2007.

In August 2007, Craig Waff [email of 8/17/2007] located the actual ordinance:

"Whereas, from the practice of playing ball in the streets of the town, great inconvenience is suffered by the inhabitants and others: . . . no person shall be permitted to play at any game of ball in any of the publick streets or highways within the limits of this town."

Rhode-Island American and General Advertiser Volume 15, Number 60 (April 25, 1823), page 4, and Number 62 (May 2, 1823), page 4.

The town of Hagerstown, bothered by "boys  ... playing at ball against the Court-House," made this a punishable trespass.

Among many column-inches listing things that should never happen on or near a highway, we find: "or fire or let off or throw any squib, rocket serpent, or other firework whatsoever, within eighty feet of the center of such road; or shall bait or run for the purpose of baiting any bull, or play [p. 167/168] at football, tennis [an indoor game then, as far as we know LMc] , fives, cricket, or any other game or games upon such road, or on the side or sides thereof, or in any exposed situation near thereto, to the annoyance of any passenger or passengers . . . " Wm. Robinson, The Magistrate's Pocket-Book; or, and Epitome of the Duties and Practice of a Justice of the Peace (London, 1825), section 87, pp 167-168. Provided by John Thorn, 2/8/2008.

"CITY OF BALTIMORE. 36. AN ORDINANCE to restrain evil practices therein mentioned. . . .[Sec. 3] it shall not be lawful for any person to play at bandy or ball, to fly a kite or throw a stone or any other missile in . . . any street, lane, or alley opened for public use within the limits of the city." Section 7 covers Sabbath play, again including ball, and adding "pitching quoits or money." The penalty was $1.00. The ordinance is dated March 2, 1827.

Baltimore Gazette and Daily Advertiser, March 13, 1827, page 3. Posted to the 19CBB listserve November 2009 by George Thompson. Note:

It is reported that Alderman Peters of NY's Ninth Ward, "together with High Constable Hays, at the head of eight or ten of the peace Officers . . . arrest a number of men and boys for breaking the Sabbath by playing ball in a vacant lot.:

New York Evening Post, December 22, 1828, page 2, column 2: and Commercial Advertiser, December 23, 1828, page 2, columns 2-3. Contributed by George Thompson, email of January 9, 2009.

A group of Philadelphians who may eventually organize as the Olympic Ball Club begin playing town ball in Philadelphia, PA, but are prohibited from doing so within the city limits by ordinances dating to Colonial times. A site in Camden, New Jersey is used to avoid breaking the laws in Philadelphia. Caution: this unsourced item, retained from the original chronology of 70 items, has been seriously questioned by a researcher familiar with Philadelphia ballplaying. This group may correspond to the eighteen ropemakers whose ball play is cited in “A Word Fitly Spoken,” published in The American Sunday School Magazine of January 1830, pp. 3-5.

"Men as well as boys played the competitive games of 'Long Bullets' and 'Fives,' the latter played against a battery built by nailing planks to twenty-foot poles set to make the  'battery' at least fifty feet wide. The school boys played 'base,' 'bull-pen,' 'town ball' and 'shinny' too." 

"Be it ordained by the Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the city of Norwich . . . That if any person or persons should play at ball, cat ball, or sky ball, or at ball generally . . . in any of the public streets of said city, the person or persons so offending shall forfeit and pay . . . the sum of two dollars; and when any minor or apprentice shall be guilty of a violation of this by-law, the penalty may be recovered from the parent or guardian." The fine also applied to bowling, kite-flying, and hoops. Norwich Courier, Volume 11, Issue 8 (May 16, 1832), page 1. Provided by John Thorn, email of 1/14/2008. Note: "Sky ball?"

"Any person who shall on the Sabbath day play bandy, cricket, cat, town ball, corner ball, over ball, fives, or any other game of ball, within the limits of the Corporation, or shall engage in pitching dollars, or quoits in any public place, shall on conviction thereof, be fined the sum of one dollar." 

"It is ordained, by the Trustees of the Village of Plattsburgh, that no person shall, at any time after the 22d of April, 1834, play ball, either in Bridge-street or Margaret-street, in said Village, under a penalty of fifty cents for each offence, to be sued for and recovered with costs."

This ordinance was approved by the village board of trustees on 4/19/1834.

In June the town wrote new by-laws:

"Section Eighth: No person shall play at ball, fly a kite, or slide down hill upon a sled, or play at other game so as to incommodate peaceable citizens or passengers, in any street, lane, or public place in this town, under a penalty not exceeding one dollar for each offence."

"By-Laws of the Town of New Bedford," New Bedford [MA] Mercury, September 30, 1836. Accessed via subscription search May 5, 2009. Note: See #1821.6 above: this by-law simply adds "public places," and doubles the penalty, for the rule made 15 years earlier.

Section 36 of the Canton IL ordinance passed on 3/27/1837 said:

"any person who shall on the Sabbath day play at bandy, cricket, cat, town-ball, corner-ball, over-ball, fives, or any other game of ball, in any public place, shall . . . " [be fined one dollar].

http://www.illinoisancestors.org/fulton/1871_canton/pages95_126.html#firstincorporation, as accessed 1/1/2008. Information provided by David Nevard 6/11/2007. See also #1837.8, below. Canton IL is about 25 miles SW of Peoria.

On January 31, 2010, Jeff Kittel indicated that he has found the text in another source: History of Fulton County, Illinois (Chapman & Co., Peoria, 1879), pp 527-528. Accessed 2/6/10 via Google Books search ("history of fulton" 1879). Jeff, noting that the ban appeared just 37 days after Canton was incorporated, adds:

"It seems that they had a lively community of ballplayers in Fulton County. Obviously, if they're passing laws against the playing of ball, ball-playing is so widely prevalent, and there is such a variety of ball games being played, then pre-modern baseball had been played in the community for some time. It's fascinating that one of the first things they did, upon incorporation, was ban ball-playing on the Sabbath."

Section 34 of an Indianapolis IN ordinance said:

"Any person who shall on the Sabbath day play at cricket, bandy, cat, town ball, corner ball, or any other game of ball within the limits of the corporation, or shall engage in pitching quoits or dollars in any public place therein, shall on conviction pay the sum of one dollar for each offense."  [See the very similar #1837.7, above.] 

Richard pointed out in 2008 that these very similar regulations give us the earliest citation for the term "town ball" he knows of, but in 2014 he found the very similar 1834 prohibition on Springfield IL at 1834.9. 

“In 1833, a group of Philadelphia players formed a team, the Olympics. By 1837, the team had a clubhouse at Broad and Wallace Streets, a constitution, records of their games, and uniforms - dark blue pants, a scarlet-trimmed white shirt, and a white cap trimmed in blue.”

On May 8, the New York City By-laws and Ordinancesprohibit ball playing: "No person shall play at ball, quoits, or any other sport or play whatsoever, in any public place in the City of New York, nor throw stones nor run foot races in or over or upon the same, under the penalty of five dollars for each offence."

Source is By-Laws and Ordinances of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonality of the City of New York. Revised 1838-1839 [William B. Townsend, New York, 1839], page 215.

"It shall not be lawful for any person or persons . . . to frequent and use the market-house as a place for playing ball or any other game."

-- Carlisle PA Ordinance, 1840

NY State Senator Minthorne Tompkins, whose property opens on a lot "well calculated for a game of ball . . . has been much diverted of late with the sport of the boys, who have numbers some three hundred strong on [Sabbath Day]. . . . The Sunday officers believing it to be their duty to stop this open violation of the laws of the State, took measures to effect it, but Senator T. believing the law wrong, too measures to sustain it, and when the officers appeared on the ground Sunday fortnight, the Senator also appeared, and told the boys that he would protect them, if they would protect him. Thus they entered into an alliance offensive and defensive, and the officers, after a little brush with the honorable ex-senator, he having given his name as responsible for their deeds, left the premises in charge of the victors, they conceiving that among three hundred opponents, discretion was the greater part of valor. The ex-senator appeared at the upper police before Justice Palmer, and after a hearing, entered bail for an appearance at the Court of Sessions, to answer the offense of interfering with the duties of the officers, etc. He refused to pay the costs of suit . . . . Justice Palmer discovering that the ex-senator's lawyers, John A. Morrill and Thomas Tucker, Esqrs. were about obtaining a writ of habeas corpus, concluded to let him go without getting the costs, in order that the case might be tested before the Court of Sessions. Thus the affair stands at present, and when it comes up before trial will present a curious aspect." New York Herald, December 21,1841. Posted to 19CBB by Richard Hershberger on 2/2/2008.

Richard adds, "Alas, a search does not turn up the resolution to this case".

[Describing the unhappy lot of a boy prohibited from going out to recess:]

"the poor fellow could only look through the window, in perfect misery, upon the sports without - his favorite game of 'wicket,' or 'two old cat,' or 'goal,' or the 'snapping of the whip,' - and hear the shouts when the players were 'caught out,' or the wicket was knocked off, or someone had performed a feat of great agility."

"Schoolboy Days, "The New-England Weekly Review (Hartford, CT), Issue 5, column D, January 29, 1842. Posted by Richard Hershberger on 12/11/ 2007.

The city of Delhi banned play of "any game, goal, or ball, on the Public Square" with a fine of 25 cents for violators.

"[I]t shall be unlawful for any person or persons to play at any game of Ball . . . whereby the grass or grounds of any Pubic place or square shall be defaced or injured." (Fine is $5 plus costs of prosecution.)

Cleveland City Council Archives, 1845. March 4, 1845 Link provided by John Thorn 11/6/2006. For an image of the ordinance, go to:

http://omp.ohiolink.edu/OMP/Printable?oid=1048668&scrapid=2742, accessed /2/2008. This site refers to an earlier ban: "Although as earlier city ordinance outlawed the playing of baseball in the Public Square in Cleveland, the public was not easily dissuaded from playing . . . ." Note: is the earlier Cleveland ban findable?

On 3/6/2008, Craig Waff posted a note to 19CBB that in 1857 it was reported that "this truly national game is daily played in the pubic square," but that a city official suggested that it violated a local ordinance (presumably that of 3/4/1845), and then reported that there in fact was no such law. "The crowd sent up a shout and renewed the game, which continued until dark." "Base Ball in Cleveland, Porter's Spirit of the Times, Volume 2, number 7 (April 18, 1857, page 109, column 1.P

The Saco Maine Democrat, July 28, 1846 prints the town's by-laws, which forbids "bag and ball" or striking any ball with a bat or other implement.

The town of Woodsfield, Ohio, banned "ball playing" on Main St. of the town, on penalty of a 25 cent fine.

The "ball playing" was not further specified.

"The Old Records of the 1848. By Laws, of Fitchburg. Articles. By Laws, to be observed by the Town of Fitchburg.

1st If any person shall play at any game of ball, or strike any ball with a bat-stick, or his feet, or shall throw any ball into, in, about, across or along any of the Streets or Roads in the Town of Fitchburg, he shall for each offence forfeit and pay the sum of one Dollar."

Montpelier town council threatened prosecution of "ball playing" within the city limits.

"Yesterday, quite a number of boys were arrested by the police for ball playing and other similar practices in the public streets . . . . [Three were nabbed] for playing ball in front of the church, corner of Butler and Court streets, during divine service. They were fined $2.50 each this morning by Justice King." Two others were fined for the same offense.

"There shall be no ball playing in or among the College buildings or against the walls.  All athletic exercises must be kept at a distance, so as to prevent damage to the buildings and interruption to study." 

St. Augustine banned "shinny" and "game(s) of ball of any kind" in the city streets.

To prevent windows being broken and passers-by being annoyed.

"Base Ball at Cleveland This truly national game is daily played in the public square, and one of the city authorities decided that there was law against it. When appealed to, he quietly informed the players that there was no law against ball-playing there . . . The crowd sent up a shout and renewed the game, which continued until dark."

"Report of the City Marshal - City Marshal Ellis reports that for the month ending yesterday, 124 persons were committed to the City Prison, charged with the following criminal offences: Drunkenness, 79; assault, 6; picking pockets, 1; vagrancy, 9; playing ball on Sunday, 4, felonious assault, 1 . . . . Nativity - Ireland, 84; England, 12; Scotland, 4; Germany, 7; United States, 16; colored, 1. Total, 124." Others were jailed for selling diseased meat, perjury, stealing, robbery, and embezzlement.

"Sect. 10. No person or persons shall, without the consent of the mayor or board of aldermen, engage in games of ball, foot-ball, or other athletic sports, upon the public garden."

The Atlanta Southern Confederacy, April 11, 1862, editorializes against ball playing in the city streets:

"Boys Playing in the Streets... a nuisance...let them go [outside the city] where their balls will not be striking against persons passing the streets...We have no wish to deprive the boys of their pleasure--particularly of the healthful exercise of ball playing--but it is inconvenient and dangerous in our streets."

Unclear whether this is town ball or baseball.

“I remember helping to organize for our own regiment as baseball nine which won the championship of the read-guard, defeating some active nines from Connecticut and Massachusetts. For our regimental team I served as pitcher and I believe as captain.

“The baseball contests were, however, brought suddenly to a close through an unfortunate misunderstanding with the Rebels, upon whose considerateness in this matter of sports we had, it appeared, placed too much confidence. We found no really satisfactory ground for baseball within the lines of our fortifications and, after experimenting with a field just outside our earthworks, we concluded that risk of using a better field which was just outside the line of the pickets. It was, of course, entirely contrary not only to ordinary regulations but to special orders prohibiting any men from going through the picket lines. It was particularly absurd for men without arms to run any such risk. I do not now understand how the officers of the 176^th, including the major commanding, could have permitted themselves to incur such a breach of discipline, but the thing was done and trouble resulted therefrom.

“We were winning a really beautiful game from the 13^th Connecticut, a game in which our own pickets, who were the only spectators, found themselves much interested. Suddenly there came a scattering fire of which the three outfielders caught the brunt: the centre field was hit and was captured, the left and right field managed to get into our lines. Our pickets fell forward with all possible promptness as the players fell back. The Rebel attack, which was made with merely a skirmish line, was repelled without serious difficulty, but we had lost not only our centre field but our baseball and it was the only baseball in Alexandria.

G. H. Putnam, Memories of My Youth 1844-1865 (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1914), pp 48-49. Accessed 6/28/09 on Google Books via “’my youth’ putnam” search. The 176^th was part of the Red River Campaign, and Alexandria LA is in mid-Louisiana, about equidistant from Baton Rouge and Shreveport. The 176^th, raised in New York City, was at Alexandria LA from mid-April to mid-May of 1864. The 13^th CT, organized in Hartford, was there April 30 to May 10. Kirsch and Millen both carry the meat of this colorful passage. Millen identifies Putnam with the 114^th NY.

Ball clubs have three distinct classes of players, viz., . The professionals are of course not such as those in cricket, that is, they are not paid for their services like cricket professionals, the rules of base ball strictly prohibiting anything of the kind; they are simply professed players of the highest rank, being proficient in a practical knowledge of the game. They include the first nines of our leading clubs, and are styled “professionals” in contradistinction to the amateurs, who include such members of a club as are not first or even second class players, and yet not such tyros in a knowledge of the game, or so deficient in their ability to field, as to be included under the head of “muffins.” Brooklyn Eagle August 17, 1864

junior clubs

We note the fact with pleasure that there are now over thirty regularly organized junior clubs in Brooklyn, and not far from a hundred in and around the metropolis. Brooklyn Eagle August 22, 1864

In on pitchers, the rule to be observed this season by leading umpires will be as follows: When the game commences, the umpire, after making such allowance for accidental unfair delivery as the circumstances will justify, will without appeal call “ball to the bat,” after which notice should the pitcher fail “repeatedly”, viz., twice or three times to deliver a fair ball, then the umpire will call “one ball;” and if the pitcher persists in such action, that is, delivers one or two unfair balls directly after such warning and calling of one ball, two and three balls are to be called, and the player given his base. Less latitude will be allowed in this matter than was permitted last season, and the practice of taking the opinion of the two nines or their captains as to the degree of latitude to be observed in making allowance for unfair balls is to be entirely done away with, as a custom alike adverse to the interests of the game and proper observance of the rules required by the National Association. There is but one interpretation to be placed upon the rules of the game, and that one is the definition authorized by the committee of rules and regulations; and all who heard the report of the chairman of the committee at the last conventional, are well aware of the fact that they recognized no such power in the hands of the umpire as that usurped last season, by which pitchers were allowed a latitude for unfair fielding [sic] which the rules really prohibited. In fact, the rule this season will be fair pitching, for experience has shown that style of delivery to be alike the most conducive to interesting games to the spectators, and to enjoyable contests to the players. Fair pitching with good fielders to attend to the work that results from it, is the best policy for all clubs to pursue.

Cope their [the Keystones] regular pitcher is an excellent player for the position. He is plucky up to the backbone to begin with, and his good humor is a qualification that alone makes him a desirable member of a club, and he can pitch for hours without apparently feeling fatigue. He watches the bases closely and pitches a good ball, and when well backed up in the field will prove a troublesome opponent in the position. We would, however, suggest to him to drop that habit of his of following players when running their bases. It is not the right thing to do by any means. In fact, a strict construction of the rules should lead an umpire to prohibit it on the grounds of hindering the fielders from a full performance of their duties.

On our fourth page, our reporters furnish an account of the visit of the Keystone and a Picked Nine, to Atlantic City. Both nines were hospitably treated, and their stay made pleasant through the kindness of the proprietors of the United States and Surf Hotels. These gentlemen were unremitting in their attentions, as was also Major Dick White, of the Galt House. The latter deserves to be elected an honorary member of every crack club in the country. We have a protest to offer, and we do it, in the best possible spirit; but, if not hearkened to, we shall be compelled to advert to it again, perhaps in a manner not to be misunderstood. What we have to complain of is that clubs leaving the city to play at places, where invited, generally have with them from three to half a dozen of the low spirited curs, known as sponges. We care not whose friends they are, or how respectably they may be connected, socially or politically, we ind, if the thing is not stopped, to stop it.

We have grown tired of these ill-mannered “beats,” and have put up with their audacity out of respect to the clubs whose badges they wore. But the thing is “played out,” and is no longer to be tolerated. It ought to be a standing rule with clubs, on leaving the city, to inquire who is of the company; and players should be prohibited from inviting their personal friends. These bummer follow all of our clubs in their peregrinations, and their meanness is only excelled byt heir impudence. Verbum sap, for the present.

In reply to “An Old Player”, we have to state that the rules are a little cloudy in reference to the subject he desires information upon.

The rules of the game prohibiting p layers from taking part in match-games, unless they have been legitimate members of the club they play with, and “of no other club”, for thirty days, being well understood, it becomes a matter of importance to know when a player legally ceased to be a member of a club. In the first place, he must be clear of being in arrears for dues, and secondly, must have given in his resignation to some officer of the club he leaves. The question now arises, however, as to whether he is to be considered a member until his resignation has been accepted, or whether his resignation dates from the day it was given into the hands of the official of the club. In the one case, unless it was personally handed to some officer of the club, the resignation might be dropped in to the Post Office misdirected, and there allowed to lie; whereas, in the other, if the member was to be considered as such until the club he resigned from chose to act upon it, he might e kept out of the club he wished to play with for months. If any players be legally entitled to leave a club–and he is so entitled if not in arrears for dues, and every player can be charged with dues if the treasurer of the club he belonged to has not a clear record of his payment of the same on his books–we see no just cause why he should not be allowed to do so at any time he chose, and why he should not be considered as having ceased to be a member from the date of his resignation. If all clubs were to act as promptly in this matter of receiving and acting upon resignations as the Excelsiors did in the case of Crane and Pearce, there would be no trouble in regarding a player as still a member of a club until his resignation has been acted upon and accepted. But as some clubs refuse to accept resignations at times, and other purposely postpone action upon them with a view of delaying or preventing the player from playing in a rival club, we should think the fairest way would be to date the time of a player’s being a member of a club he joins form the day he handed in his resignation to an officer of the club he leaves. The next Convention will have to settle this controversy.

The Central Park grounds are used only by the schools in the vicinity, match games by senior clubs being prohibited on account of the crowds which they attract, and the destruction that would result to the park.

The Central Park grounds are used only by the schools in the vicinity, match-games by senior clubs being prohibited on account of the crowds which they attract, and the destruction that would result to the turf. Philadelphia City Item April 7, 1867, citing the Tribune

This year is seems that the Park Commissioners are really in earnest in trying to make base ball the national game of America. They have allotted two splendid pieces of ground, provided iron home and pitchers’ bases, &c.; they also check bases, shoes, caps, balls, bats, &c.; and it well pays a person to visit the grounds while the clubs are playing. Ball Players Chronicle July 25, 1867

Seeing an item in your paper about the Excelsior Club, saying that we have been forbidden to play in the [Central] Park, allow me to correct it, it being a mistake. Only the older members of the club, or some of the first nine, have been prohibited from playing, they being over the age allotted to boys allowed to play in the Park. Ball Players Chronicle August 1, 1867

Mr. Stevens, the owner of all the Hoboken ball fields, has prohibited match-games from being played on any of the fields, unless with express permission in each case–his object being to put a stop to championship-contests, no more of which are to be allowed at Hoboken. This will lead to every prominent match at baseball either being played on the new cricket ground of the St. George Club or on the new ball field of the Nationals of Jersey City. This is a bad thing for championship games, but a good thing for clubs generally. The enclosed grounds at Brooklyn will also be needed more than before.

[from answers to correspondents] There is but one rule which distinctly prohibits runs or bases being made on dead balls, and that is in section 19, which refers only to foul balls. Players are obliged to return and touch their bases in cases of fly balls when the ball is alive and in play–see section 26. It will be seen that on these two rules the prohibition of running bases applies in two different cases, the one for dead balls and the other–only in part a prohibition–for live balls. Consequently, as there is no rule in which the words distinctly prevent bases being run on dead balls as such, there is no objection to running bases on “called” balls, which are made dead balls by rule 10. This rule (section 10) as reported from the committee of rules reads so as to allow bases to be taken only when given on a third called ball or a baulk, but the convention struck the latter clause out very unwisely, as the rule as it now reads gives an advantage to the batting nine, except the pitcher is very careful and accurate in his delivery.

[Nationals vs. Cincinnatis 7/15/1867] [The umpire’s] proper enforcement of the rule which requires the striker to stand on the line of the home-base, and which prohibits him from stepping forward or backward, was one worthy of imitation by our [i.e. New York] umpires. Whenever the batsman would take a step to strike he would call out “no strike”, and each man on the base, and the striker, if the ball was hit, had to return to their positions. This ruling is in strict conformance with the rules, and ought to have been observed years ago, but like the neglect of the rule of touching the bases it has always been a dead letter. We would, however, suggest to Mr. Brockway to call “one” or “two balls” instead of simply “ball” in the future, as the simple cry of “ball” sounds like “foul”, and may bother the fielders. New York Sunday Mercury July 21, 1867

the impression of the Nationals on the westerners

[Nationals vs. Buckeyes 7/16/1867] The victory of the previous day had created quite an unusual talk about baseball-matters in this city [Cincinnati], and hundreds were present at this second contest who had never before witnessed a game, and they went away perfectly astonished at the amount of skill requisite to play a first-class game of ball, and with a degree of respect for the game they had never entertained before, their notions in regard to its being a boy’s game having vanished as they saw the manliness requisite to excel in the game. New York Sunday Mercury July 21, 1867

[a card from Philadelphia, regarding a “social” game in which the Mutuals played the Hudson River club, including in their nine Lipman Pike] We have referred to this game (a full report of which, with the incidents which we have mentioned above, being published in the New York Tribune, of the 23d inst.), for a purpose, and that purpose is not only to remind the gentleman who professes to have bas ball matters under his especial charge in the United States, that, as this game and the circumstances attending it are precisely similar to the games played by the Athletic Club in Boston, we insist that he assumes the same position against the Mutuals that he did toward the Athletics; that he lectures them as severely, denounces them in terms as ungrateful, speaks of them as disparagingly and as bitterly as he did of the Philadelphia Club. We say that we shall insist that he does this, otherwise we shall hold him up to the ridicule of all fair-minded men. He must either do this or retract all that he has said against the Athletic Club. He will find that when the prominent clubs of the country show their independence by interpreting the laws of the association themselves, and not for a moment allowing a single base ball reporter to assume this duty for them, he will find, we remark, that he has mistaken, not only the character of the clubs to whom he was presumed to dictate, but mistaken likewise his calling. New York Clipper August 3, 1867

[editorial comment] We have not seen any attack on the Mutuals for their course with regard to Pike, as in the case of the Athletics, and we therefore presume that the assailants of the A’s, are now convinced that the position they took is untenable. New York Clipper August 3, 1867

The Mutual Club, following the example of the Athletics, we notice, have adopted the Philadelphia plan of violating the rule of the game–prohibiting players from taking part in match games, who have not been members of the club they play with thirty days–under the guise of playing a “social” game; this is, they played the Hudson River Club, with Pike in their nine, before he had been a member the designated thirty days. ... Were these so-called “social” games merely friendly meetings, designed for amusement and recreation alone, without any object of testing the playing strength of the clubs, of course no objection could be interposed, for under such circumstances two clubs could mix up their nines for the sake of making things equal; but they are not; on the contrary, these so-called “social” contests...are regular trials of skill, in which each club tries its best to win, and in which each puts forth its full strength. Hence the injurious effects of the example of contempt for the rules of the game thus afforded to less prominent clubs. If this latest dodge for violating the rules of the game be allowed to go unrebuked, by and by there will be none but “social” games played, and under this guise any and every rule of the game may be violated; for instance players may be paid for their services; the ball may be thrown or jerked; a half dozen players of other clubs can be introduced; money may be played for openly, as in the prize ring, and, in fact, all the evils which the rules prohibit, may be introduced under the plea of this “social” game system. Ball Players Chronicle August 8, 1867

...the plan laid out for this trip by Colonel Frank Jones, the President of the National Club, a plan which prohibited all entertainments by the clubs they visited, with the exception of a slight lunch at the club-rooms at the close of the game, such as the Columbus, Cincinnati and Louisville clubs had. But all suppers were tabooed out and out, and also no club was permitted to pay a dollar of the hotel expenses, although the Cincinnati and St. Louis Clubs wished to do so, and all the others would have done it had they been permitted, all being full of that hospitality which is so characteristic of the West. Of course the absence of the expensive suppers, with their accompanying temptations to dissipation, saved the Nationals from the loss of some of the games, for late hours and intemperance in eating and drinking, consequent upon these entertainments, entirely upset a man for ball play, the game as played now-a-days requiring a man to have all his wits about him to save defeat. A clear head and eye-sight, steady nerves, equable temper and good judgment are required to excel in base ball as it is now played by our first-class nines.

The practice of paying men to playball created quite a disturbance last season and finally became so objectionable, that at the meeting of the Convention last Fall, rules were formed and adopted prohibiting the hiring of players. Now we say of two evils choose the least, and we think the paying of players to play ball a less evil than the practice at present in vogue–that of playing for gate money. Under this last system, first-class clubs have fallen so low as to deliberately loose [sic] games in order to keep up the excitement and make more money on the return and home and home matches. The public will not stand this mode of treatment much longer, and will soon refuse to devote their time and spend their money to see set up jobs. We think that among the delegates to the next Convention...there will be found enough honest, upright, and honorable players and advocates of the noble game willing to vote down the game money arrangement as they did the hired system last Winter. If, however, it be found absolutely necessary to compensate players in some way (which we don’t believe) then repeal the rule passed a few years ago and pay them salaries, and let us have fair square contests in which each nine will do their best to win.

We shall first present to our readers the argument in favor of changing the rules so as to allow a club to compensate any of their players for special services rendered, or, in other words, the reasons given for an amendment abolishing the restrictions prohibiting the services of professional players in match games. In the first place, the existing rules in reference to paid players in match games are mere dead letter laws, having no effect beyond that of leading to dishonest practices in disguising the method of compensating professionals of a nine. Secondly, we do not see anything more discreditable in paying a man for his services in a base ball match than there is in doing the same thing in cricket, and cricket professionals are, as a class, as honest as any that can be found–the Wright family, for instance. The most potent reason for the change, however, is that there is no rule that can be adopted that will prevent players from being paid, and the only question, therefore, is whether it is not better to make a law to regulate that which cannot be prevented, if legally prohibited, or to have rules on our statute books which are regularly violated season after season, thereby bringing all our rules into contempt.

In view of the fact that the batting, of late years, has rather had the advantage over the pitching, an amendment has been introduced doing away with certain restrictions of the pitcher’s movement. He is now allowed to deliver the ball in what way he pleases, provided he delivers it from within the lines of his position, extended to six feet square, and does not throw or jerk the ball, these prohibited movements being expressly defined. New York Sunday Mercury December 8, 1867

a reminiscence about schoolboy play, in contrast to modern adult play; the National Association convention

When I was a schoolboy, only a few years ago, it was the fashion for boys to assemble at noon on the play-ground for a game of ball. Occasionally an hour on Saturday afternoon was added to the regular mid-day recess. By common consent, two boys, equally matched, became the leaders. One of these took a wooden “paddle,” spit on one side of it, and whirling it into the air, called out, “Wet or dry!” Wet,” said the contestant ,and all the boys crowded round to see “which side was up.” Now the choosing began. “I'll take Leonard;” “I'll take Reuben;” “I'll take Isaac;” “I'll take James;” and so on from the best players to the worst until all were chosen. Now for the first “ins,” wet or dry!” “Dry!” Up went the “paddle” spinning in the air like a top. All eyes were strained to see the paddle strike the ground. “Wet!” “wet!” exclaimed a dozen voices, and all hands rushed to their places. “I'll catch behind, you'll give ball, and the other boys will stand round in front of the striker,” said the chief player. Immediately the game began. All this done within five minutes. No advertising, no challenging, no costume, no excursions, no waste of time, no betting, no gambling, no drinking, drunkenness, fighting, or nonsense. The was play—genuine, hearty, healthful boys' play. The folly and crime of riper years never entered into those youthful sports. Newspapers, more enterprising than wise, did not herald these games, wit the names and challengers of the champions, and the innings displayed and minutely set down.

But we have ceased to be boys; our time and strength are now exercised on graver games, and on more serious results than were those on the playground of the country school-house. Others, however, have learned what we have forgotten, and in the years of manhood play the games of boyhood, demoralized by practices happily unknown to the innocence of school-days. Now, bats and balls, grounds and club-rooms, costumes and trainers, matches and excursions, meetings and convention, are patented, purchased, created, devised, made, maintained and organized at a waste of time, money and strength, that in earlier and purer times would have been pronounced downright wickedness. Here then, in keeping with the change of men and things, we have a “National Convention” of ball-players held in the Chestnut-st. Theater, with president, vice-presidents and secretaries; delegates from “State societies,” and delegates from “private clubs;” Committees on “Credentials,” “Order,” Nominations,” “Rules,” Judiciary,” &c., all sitting and deliberating, grave, and wise, and pure as legislators; no graver, no wiser, and no purer. First, rules of order are discussed; then additional clubs are admitted in the Association; and thirdly, and selfishly and cowardly, it is resolved that “No club composed of persons of color, or having in its membership persons of color, shall be admitted into the National Association.” Great applause by the delegates and hisses in the galleries: whereupon the President, with more feeling than dignity, declared as one having much authority, that if these demonstrations were repeated, he would “order the galleries to be cleared immediately.” New York Daily Tribune December 12, 1867

[commentary by “A Professional”] There as been a great deal of unnecessary and unjust abuse of professional ball playing, I take it, and the reason has been that the class who may now be ranged as professionals, have not been as careful of their character as they might have been. You know well enough that the class of first-rate ball players who have been playing ball for money, as well as for a love of the sport, for these past five or six have, have not been, as a general thing, men you can trust or rely on. The temptation to act dishonestly I know to be very great. For instance, a grand match is to be played between two clubs ranking as champion contestant, and the day is appointed, great excitement exists, and considerable money is bet on the result. Now, I am one of the nine, we will say, and two or three well known betting men come down to my place to see me early on the morning of the match. They want to know what the chances are of my club’s winning. We sit down at the table, and all have a drink around. Says A to me, “Bill, I know a man who has bet high on this match that the --------- club will win, and who would like to bet two hundred dollars to two cents with you that they will, and he has put the money up in my hands. If you take the bet, all you have to do is to give me two cents as your share of the bet, and see to it that your club gets beat. You know that they are down on you, and don’t treat you right, and it would be a good chance to get square with them. We don’t want you to ‘sell’ the game, or anything of that kind, but just go in and play kinder mad, you know.”

Now, you see how this works, Mr. Editor. If I am not particular, and am badly in want of stamps, of course I take the bet. If am I honest, I just say to them that I am not “on” that style of thing, you know, and don’t care about betting. But how many are there of us professionals who will do this? Now, this thing has been done time and again. There is another way, too, which may be called implied dishonesty, or wining at fraud in a match, and it is this: A party of five or six make up a betting “ring” on a big match, one out of town, we will say, in which case the rascality can be easier accomplished. This “ring” have an understanding with one or two of the nine of one of the contesting clubs, in which it is arranged that a handsome per centage of the bets won shall go to the players who enter the “ring,” and this being amicably arranged, these players are then informed that the “ring masters” have bet their pile on the success of the other club. It then, of course, becomes the interest of these players to see that that other club wins, and it generally happens that it does win. This little game was to have been tried in a game some four seasons ago, between a certain club located on the Island which faces the Atlantic Ocean and an old club of the city of Gotham; but a certain honest old veteran found out the “little game” in time, and, threatening exposure if it was carried out, put a stop to it. It was not known, as he kept it quiet for the sake of the club. The same thing has since been tried both at Hoboken, where it was publicly exposed, and in Philadelphia.

Now, it is this kind of thing which has brought disgrace upon the name of professional ball players, and not the fact that they are paid for their services. I don’t see what possible objection there can be to a man being paid by a club for his services as a ball player. Suppose I am in a store as a clerk or porter. I am engaged to work from 8 A.M. to 6 P.M., with no chance to get away to enjoy a game of ball of an afternoon. Now, suppose that before I went to work as a clerk I had become a noted player, and was very fond of the game, but could not engage in it without losing my place and having nothing to live on. Suppose, too, that, as a clerk or porter, I was getting $12 or $15 a week. If Mr. A or Mr. B, who is a wealthy member of this or that club, should say to me that if I would join his club and play in the nine when I was wanted, we would give me $5 a week more for my services, will you please tell me wherein I should be acting dishonorably in accepting his proposition, and thereby becoming a professional ball player? If you can tell me how I act a dishonest part in doing so, I shall feel obliged, for I can’t se it, to save me.

Again, say I am a first-class ball player, and that I have a father or a mother to help to support, and through my skill as a player, and because I belong to a club having influential politicians in it, I am placed in a good clerkship, but only on conditions of my playing with the club in question, is there any just reason why I [line cut off] do not allow of, say, [illegible] receiving compensation for his services as a player? I don’t know of any sound reason against my taking such a position. The fact is, the rule prohibiting compensation to players is a rule which actually promotes the very evil it is designed to prevent, namely, getting in a class of men in ball matches who will do anything for pay. I adopt this playing ball as a business, conscientiously believing that I am simply earning my living by my skill as a player, just as I would as a penman or accountant, or a pilot or engine-driver, and while I act an honest part, prove faithful to my club, scorn to act as an accomplice of any “betting ring” arrangement, and play the game fairly and squarely, I claim to be just as much entitled to the respect of my companions as the man who plays in the club for exercise and love of sport only. If I am to be found loafing around drinking saloons when not playing ball, and always associated with professional gamblers or “sports,” as they are called, and depend solely on my “pay” for ball playing for a mere living, and don’t avail myself of my leisure time to work other irons placed in the fire, when then people are justified in believing that I am one of the tools of the “ring,” ready to sell or be bought, and this is the class of “professionals” I do not belong to. The fact is, professional ball players have their characters in their own hands, that is, it depends upon themselves whether they are to rank with the reputable portion of the fraternity, or with the school of professionals who cultivate “plants” like that which disgraced the game in 1865.

[Union vs. Atlantic 10/6/1868] On an appeal of the scorers as to whether Goldie’s run counted, the umpire at first decided that it did not, but afterward corrected his error by giving him the run, the “striker” not having been put out before the run was made. Dr. Jones’ amendment to the rule which prohibited runs being scored after two hands were put out if the striker of the ball was put out, no matter where, being in conflict with the spirit of the rule, has not been observed this season. The Doctor inserted the words “of it” after the word “striker”, but it is considered questionable whether this covers the ground. At any rate, the rule which governs the play now is, that all runs count after two hands are out, provided the third hand is not put out before reaching the first-base; and the rule will be amended, not, doubt, to make this a permanent law of the game.

[Acme vs. Empire 11/16/1868] The Acmes having challenged the Empires to a series, and it being too late to commence and finish it this season, it was determined to give them a single game, and that one of the last of the season. [The box score shows ten on each side, including a right short.] New York Sunday News November 22, 1868

a manifesto on professionalism

The time has arrived in the progress of our national game to maturity, when the fraternity will have to be divided into two classes of players, viz., professionals and amateurs, the former consisting of the class of ball-players who play base-ball for money, or who receive special compensation in any way for their services as ballplayers, and the latter being composed of ballplayers who engage in the game either for mere sport or for recreative exercise alone.

Ever since we had a standard code of rules for the game, there has been a statue law against playing ball for money, or for compensation in any way; but, nevertheless, for the past five years at least, but in fact since 1860, this rule has been a mere dead letter. In 1867, too, the rule governing this point was so worded as to class ballplayers who played for “money, place, or emolument”, as professional, and following this came an express rule prohibiting this class from taking part in any match-game. But the rule has been still less observed than it was before. In fact, it is a law which has been easily evaded; and we doubt whether any law could be framed which would prevent a certain class of ball-players from playing for money. But why this opposition to professional ballplaying? is a question many worthy members of the fraternity have asked. The argument against it is, that it will eventually bring the game down to the low level of many of the ordinary sports in vogue. On the other hand, even granting that professional ballplaying is an evil in its way, or in its ultimate results, as it is one we cannot prevent, but one we may regulate and control, is it not rather the part of common sense to try and keep it within legitimate bounds by a proper code of rules governing the system, rather than by dead-letter laws face it with a useless opposition, and thereby aid in promoting the worst evils of the system by making professional ballplaying a discreditable occupation, besides lowering the game in public estimation.

If this season’s experience has shown any one thing more than another, it is that professional ballplaying has become an institution in the land. The way this system has come into vogue is as follows:–When, in the good old days of the Knickerbocker and Gotham matches, at Hoboken, the game was played merely for recreative exercise and the excitement incident to the sport, baseball was in its infancy. The game was then played up to that point of excellence only which the limited practice of the game enabled the leading nines of the day to attain. Since then, not only have the rules of the game been yearly improved, but the degree of practical skill evinced on the field has been kept on a par with the advanced position of the game itself. AS baseball, too, has progressed in popularity, and since club-matches have been transferred from free ballfields to inclosed grounds, and thousands of people have been found willing to pay a quarter of a dollar entrance-fee to witness a well-played game, a calss of regular ballplayers, who devote their whole time to ballplaying, have come into existence; and one important result of this new order of things has been the substitution of regularly-trained and practiced experts in the place of the amateur-players of the days of the Knickerbocker and Gotham meetings; and, a sequence, too, we have the game now played up to a point of excellence, as regards fielding and batting skill, never before attained.

The question now being discussed by the fraternity at large prior to the meeting of the National Association at Washington is whether this system of professional ballplaying is to be be legalized or repudiated by the National Association. As an example of the opposition the movement for its indorsement is likely to meet with, we have simply to quote the direct instruction from the New Jersey Convention to its delegates to vote “square against professional ballplaying.” On the other hand, four of the eight delegates from the New York Convention are from clubs having professional nines. We think that the majority of the fraternity, at the same time that they are in favor of adopting some regulation likely to prevent the evils of the revolver system and of gambling ring associations, are also in favor of giving professional players some legal status in the game whereby they can take to ballplaying for money as a calling honestly, and not as now by surreptitious means. As nothing the Association can do will prevent professional ballplaying, it is by far the best plan to adopt a code of rules applicable to the nine, than, as at present, have on the statue-book rules which are openly violated each season. New York Sunday Mercury November 29, 1868

The report of the Committee of Rules came up in order, and Mr. Chadwick, the acting Chairman, proceeded to read the report, in which he referred to the necessity of adapting [sic] such changes in the playing rules of the game as the season’s experience had shown to be advantageous, and also to the fact that bearing upon the subject of professional ball playing, that though a prohibitory rule had been on the statute-books for years, it had been merely a deal letter; and that in view of the impossibility of framing a law on the subject which could not be evaded, and also of the lack of power to enforce even if such a law could be framed, the committee had deemed it expedient to divide the fraternity into two classes, viz, professionals and amateurs, leaving the two parties to have their intercourse governed by such rules as their State associations might adapt. New York Sunday Mercury December 13, 1868 [also found verbatim NY Clipper 12/19/1868]

The “revolvers” have been checked in their operations by the amendment changing the time of prohibition from thirty to sixty days. John Wildey voted for ten days, and Mr. Ward for ninety; but finally sixty was fixed upon, and now no man can take part in a match-game unless he has ceased to be a member or has not played in any other club’s nine, then the one he plays with for sixty days prior to the time he plays. New York Sunday Mercury December 13, 1868

This amendment elicited a lively discussion. John Wildey, of the Mutuals, speaking in favor of ten days, and Mr. Ward in favor of ninety days... College clubs, however, have been made exceptional to this rule. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury December 13, 1868

Section 6, of the fourth rule, has been amended so as to read as follows:

“If two hands are already out, no player running home at the time the ball is struck can make a run to count in the score of the game, if the striker or player running the bases I put out before reaching the first base.”

This is an important amendment; the rule, last season, prohibiting any of the base runners to score a run when the striker of the ball should be the third hand out–this being manifestly unjust, as a man might be the third out on the home base after sending three men home, and yet according to the letter of the law, these three runs would not be counted in the score.

In giving bases on called balls the striker alone takes a base now, unless a player be on the first base when three balls are called; but unless obliged to vacate a base in accordance with the rule governing base-running, no base can be given on called balls except the first. Last year, if there was a player on third-base and three balls were called, the player in question came home; but now such a player cannot take a base on called balls unless all three bases are occupied when the striker is given a base. New York Sunday Mercury December 20, 1868

some batsmen in the habit of running in on the ball

The amendment to the rule governing the striker’s movements are judicious. Last season the words “About to strike the ball”, were found to be too indefinite, this working giving the striker too much latitude in his movements. Now, while at the same time he is permitted to move with freedom in striking at the ball, he is obliged, when in the act of striking, to stand astride the line of the home-base. This not only prevents his taking any backward step; from doing which he is otherwise expressly prohibited by the rule; but it prevents him from running in to meet the ball, as some batsmen are getting in the habit of doing, and by which they shortened the distance between themselves and the pitcher, and made the latter’s position far more dangerous even than it is now. The batsman now has all the legitimate freedom of movement he is entitled to, and the man who cannot bat a ball as skillfully under the new wording of the rule as he did before, is not much of a batsman. New York Sunday Mercury December 20, 1868

Last season no man could belong to any other club than the one he p layed with, or rather could not play in a match game as such a member, no matter whether the other club was one in or out of the Association. This year, provided the club he belongs to is not in the Association–such as a junior club for instance–or if in the Association it be a College club, it does not matter. For instance, Mr. Bush is catcher of the National club of Albany, but while in College at Harvard he is the catcher of the Harvard nine. Now last year he could not play in the National Club matches unless he resigned from the Harvard club; this year he can play in both nines, as College nines are exempted from the prohibition applied to all other Association clubs. Also junior clubs are now out of the list, consequently it is not now necessary that a member of a junior club should have to wait sixty days, or two days even, before he can play in a match as one of the nine of a senior club, provided he does not also belong to some other senior club.

The question has been asked, “What is an Amateur Club?” The rule prohibiting ball playing for money having been repealed and another adopted, legalizing professional or paid players, it becomes of no little interest to the majority of clubs to determine their standing as to whether they are professionals or amateurs. The greater number of ball clubs in this vicinity are anxious to be classed as amateurs, as experience has proven that they are seldom, if ever, able to vanquish the thoroughly-professional Atlantics or Mutuals, of this city, although they (the would-be Amateurs) have men who indirectly receive money for their time spent on the ball field. The wording of the new rule does not strictly imply that there is a marked difference to be made in clubs, as it only applies to players; and here is the point on which it is to be decided whether a club is professional or amateur.

To my mind a professional club would be one composed wholly, or of a majority, of professional players. It would hardly be proper to just to style a club professional that has one, two, or three paid players: yet they are not strictly amateurs. Neither would it be just to not style a club amateur when they have one man playing in the nine to whom it would be a pecuniary loss were he not paid for his time spent in playing match games. If the opinion of your New York correspondent was to prevail, and be accepted as the meaning of the rule in question; viz., “That matches between professional and amateur Clubs did not count or affect the list of victories and defeats of each club.” I am of the opinion that considerable trouble would be experienced in matches played between clubs claiming to be amateurs, could it be proved by either club that their opponents had paid players. It is very doubtful if there are any clubs, as a class, that do no have one or more playing members whose time is paid for whenever they are engaged in matches, while a great many clubs who have heretofore been classed as strictly amateur, have been, and intend this season to play upon enclosed grounds, to which an admittance fee is charged, and the proceeds going to the club, being divided among the players of the first nine.

The rule in question was intended to make a class of certain clubs that had heretofore had the reputation of employing and paying men to devote their time to playing ball. But as it reads, it virtually does nothing but to designate a man that plays ball, as a professional player. Therefore a professional club would necessarily have to be composed of a majority, or wholly of paid players. The rule should be definite. Yet who shall define it. We have both professional and amateur officers in the National Association. Their views may differ, while some may hold strictly radical views, and insist that a club to be an amateur one, must be composed wholly of players devoting their without any compensation, either directly or indirectly. The adoption of the rule has undoubtedly increased the interest in base ball, as many clubs that have heretofore been drooping and dying out, now give signs of renewed vigor, and are filling up with active members. “Jerry” [elsewhere in the issue described as “a gentleman of high standing in the fraternity”]

1st. Never call a strike on the first ball delivered, of course except the batsman strikes at the ball–as such a call is positively prohibited.

2d. Never call a strike until you have first warned the batsman of the penalty of his refusal to strike at fair balls. This warning can be given in some such words as “a fair ball, I shall call the next.”

3d. Never call a strike on a batsman who, either in the early part of a game, or when there are no players running the bases, fails to strike promptly, as in such cases there is an absence of the required motive, “to delay the game,” or “to give advantage to a player.”

4th. When a player is at first base, however, and the striker be at all over-particular in regard to selecting balls to strike at, warn him at one, and call strikes on him promptly, when really fair balls are delivered.

5th. Also, when darkness or storm is approaching, and it is to the advantage of the striker, or of the club he plays for, to delay the game, at once give warning, and promptly call strikes on every fair ball sent in and not struck at.

6th. Should it, however, under similar circumstances, be to the Striker’s advantage to hasten the game, and to the interest of his club for him to strike out, do not call strikes on him, even if he hit at the ball, unless it be a ball which he can hit and would have selected in the early part of the game; as the rules particularly prohibit any “unlawful” striking out.

7th. Remember, too, that in calling strikes, if the batsman is in the habit of striking at a ball of any particular highth [sic], and yet calls for a ball lower or higher than he is in the habit of striking at, for any special purpose, you must call strikes on him if he fails to hit at the balls he calls for, whether they really suit him or not.

8th. You can only call strikes on a batsman for his refusal to hit at balls within the legitimate reach of his bat. When they are pitched to him out of his legitimate reach, or not within reasonable distance of the height he calls for, you cannot call strikes on him.

9th. Finally, remember top be very strict in calling strikes whenever players are running bases, and especially when a player is on first base; and also be strict when it is getting dark or a storm is approaching and delay is advantageous to the striking party. But when there is no apparent motive, either to delay the game, to give advantage to the player, or weary the pitcher, you cannot fairly call strikes on a batsman unless he becomes tediously or unnecessarily particular as to the ball he wants pitched to him.

The directors have given Mr. John Wildey, the President of the club, absolute control of the players—a move that cannot fail to be productive of the best results. Mr. Wildey has already set apart two days in the week for practice, which, together, with the three or four matches that will be played weekly seems likely to give the nine but little chance to grow rusty. A fine of $5 will be imposed upon a member absent on a practice or match day, while the penalties for other offences have been made equally severe. Charley Mills, the captain of the nine, will report all delinquents to Mr. Wildey, and will be held personally responsible for the good conduct and punctual attendance of the players on all occasions.

The following hints to Umpires will be found useful, and should be read attentively by every player:

THE PITCHER

1. Never call on the first ball.

2. Never call a ball until the pitcher has been warned.

3. After stating to the pitcher where he is to pitch, call out the words, “Ball to the bat,” on the next unfair pitch.

4. After having warned the pitcher, call the next unfair ball, and follow it up with successive calls if unfair balls are pitched.

5. Never give two warnings while one striker is at the bat. “One warning for each striker.”

6. Never call until the ball has passed the striker.

7. Every ball pitched over the head of the batsman must be called, provided the pitcher has been warned.

8. Every ball pitched on the opposite side of the striker must be called.

9. Every ball touching the ground before passing the home base must be called; likewise every ball pitched beyond the reach of his bat.

10. The Umpire should remember that the intention of the pitcher should have nothing to do with his decision. He must call whenever unfair balls are pitched, whether the unfair delivery arises from inability to pitch or not. The Umpire should bear in mind that it is not optional with him to be strict or lenient; he must be strict at all times in enforcing the rules, or he is incompetent for the position.

THE STRIKER

1. Call a strike on the first ball, if it is pitched where the striker desires. This rule should be strictly observed, for it is the duty of the batter to be as ready for the first ball as for the second, third, and so on.

2. Never call a strike until you have warned the batsman.

4. [sic] When a player is at first base, and the striker is at all over-particular in regard to balls, warn him at once, and call strikes on him promptly, when fair balls are delivered.

5. Also, when darkness or storm is approaching, and it is to the advantage of the striker, or the club he plays for, to delay the game, at once give warning, and promptly call strikes on every fair ball.

6. Should it, however, under similar circumstances, be to the striker’s advantage to hasten the game, and for the interest of his club for him to strike out, do not call strikes on him, even if he hit at the ball, unless it be a ball which he can hit and would have selected in the early part of the game; as the rules particularly prohibit any wilful striking out.

7. Remember, too, that in calling strikes, if the batsman is in the habit of striking at a ball of any particular height, and yet calls for a ball lower or higher than he is in the habit of striking at, for any special purpose, you must call strikes on him if he fails to hit at the ball he calls for, whether they really suit him or not.

8. You can only call strikes on a batsman for his refusal to hit at balls within the legitimate reach of his bat.

9. Finally, remember to be very strict in calling strikes whenever players are running bases, and especially when a player is on first base; and also be strict when it is getting dark or a storm is approaching, and delay is advantageous to the striking party.

[Athletics vs. Haymakers 9/6/1869] Mr Pratt [the umpire] has never read the rules, and is lamentably ignorant of them. We do not impugn his integrity–we never question the integrity of any umpire–we merely say he is ignorant, and his ignorance beat the Haymakers. One instance will suffice. Bearman was on the second base, when McAfee was given his first on three balls, the third ball being a passed one. Before the third ball was called, Bearman started for his third, having safely reached which, McBride demanded that the ball should be put to second, and called judgment on the runner, when the umpire declared him out. This glaring bit of ignorance beat the Haymakers, who behaved like gentlemen under the unjust infliction. Philadelphia City Item September 11, 1869

[Athletics vs. Haymakers 9/6/1869] McAfee...was given his first on called balls. Bearman, at the time the third ball was called, attempted to steal his third, and the ball passing Radcliff, was enabled to do so. The ball was passed to NcMullen, thence to Reach, and the umpire decided Bearman “out,” according to the second setion of Rule 2, which says: “No base runner shall take a base on called balls, unless he is obliged to vacate the base he occupies.” This decision gave rise to a great deal of comment, and at one time threatened to put an end to the contest; but ultimately better counsel prevailed, and the game went on. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury September 12, 1869

It is really surprising how generally ignorant of the Amended Rules of the game the majority of professional players are. There is Tom Pratt, for instance, who is captain oft he Tri-Mountain nine, of Boston, who did not know that the rule, which in 1867 prohibited base running on called balls, had been changed so as to admit of such running, except in cases of a called ball hit. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury September 19, 1869, quoting Chadwick in the New York Sunday Mercury.

[from Answers to Correspondents] “Knickerbocker” wants to know whether there is anything in the rules which prevents the captain of a nine from taking a fielder from his position any where in front of the bat and playing him behind the catcher to catch foul balls. We cannot find anything in the rules prohibiting such a course; and there is nothing to prevent an umpire from deciding a player out from a catch made in any part of the field by any player of the fielding nine or regular side of “ten” or more as the case may be.

In the convention of 1866 a request was made by a prominent New York Professional Club, to have a law passed expelling any member of any club who should be guilty of the offence of selling, or attempting to throw any game of base ball. This law was aimed a three players, who (according to the statement of this club) had been guilty of this act, and these three persons, were, by this law, forever prohibited from participating in any association game. The following year this club found themselves in need of the services of one of these same players and the result is to be seen in the proceedings of the National Association held at Philadelphia, in 1867, vide the action taken in the case of Thomas Devry [sic]. The grounds upon which the decision of the Judiciary Committee was reversed were just, as far as they went, but the ulterior object was gained, and this club was satisfied. Time rolled on past another annual meeting of the National Association, and once more this same club found themselves again in need. This time they wanted a good third baseman, and Mr. Duffy, one of the three above named, was found to possess all those qualifications necessary to fill that position, and the Mutual Club set about accomplishing this object. In the State Convention of New York, held last month, there were found to be fourteen or more clubs on the roll book that had failed to pay their annual dues for 1868-9, and who should thereby have ceased to become members of the State Association; but by a resolution passed they were allowed sixty days in which to pay up or be dropped from the rolls. This action gave New York a representation of eight-one club or nine delegates, as within the sixty days grace the National Association would hold its annual meeting. Of those nine delegates all of the professional clubs of New York obtained one each, the balance being composed of New York men with two exceptions. It will thus be seen that the professional clubs of New York went to the National Association meeting with the balance of power, and could do as they had done before, obtain any object by the judicious distribution of the officers, &c, within the gift of the Association. A resolution was introduced by the New York delegation under instructions from their State Association, to remit the penalty imposed upon Mr. Duffy, and it was done. The Convention should have gone further and accomplished their good work by reinstating Mr. Wansley, who has been unfortunate enough in not being wanted by the Mutual Club. ... How much in contrast has been the action of the Mutual Club in these two cases to that they took when Mr. Wansley joined another club, immediately upon his so doing, charges were preferred against the club receiving him, and the Judiciary Committee decided against Mr. Wansley, and he was obliged to retire disgraced from base ball circles. This is not written to advance any interest of Mr. Wansley, as I have not the honor of his acquaintance, but to show how a certain few have managed to control the last several meetings of the N.A.B.B.P. in the interest of Professionalism.

The fraternity will be surprised to learn that the Knickerbocker Club, of New York, has formally withdrawn from the National Association, and that the National Club, of Albany, and other amateur clubs, will shortly follow suit. This action is the most important taken by any club since the organization of the association, and in its results must necessarily have an important bearing on the future interests of the game. The fact is the reputable clubs of the fraternity have become so disgusted with the evils which seem to be inherent in professionalism, that they have at last come to the conclusion that as they cannot control the class in question, to an extent sufficient to keep them respectable and honorable members of the fraternity, they will withdraw from all association with them. Of course this movement of the leading amateur clubs is simply a forerunner of the establishment of a National Association on a strictly amateur footing, one rule of which will be the prohibition of match games with professional nines, and another rule the entire repudiation of every form of professional ball-playing. That the Knickerbockers will soon have plenty of indorsers of their action in other amateur clubs there is not the slightest doubt, so that by next fall the probability is that there will not be a sufficient number of clubs left in the National Association to call a convention, unless the professionals have one of their own.

[Forest City of Cleveland vs. Mutual 8/24/1870] James White did not remain long in the pitching department, the umpire [Chapman] ruling him out for throwing. A word or two about this throwing business before we continue. Let any ball-player take a ball in hand, and, keeping his arm perfectly straight, and swinging it perpendicularly, or, in other words, let him deliver the ball by a square pitch, and not by an under-hand throw; and having done this and noted the pace of the ball so delivered, let him send the ball by means of a well-disguised under hand throw, or half jerk, and he will then realize the fact that there is not a swift pitcher in the country who does not get his speed from under-hand throwing. James White’s deliver in the games he has pitched in here does not differ in the least from that of Cummings, of the Stars; Wolters of the Mutuals; Pabor, of the Unions; or, in fact, any of the number of our swiftest pitchers. No such pace can be got out of a really square-pitched ball. Creighton inaugurated this style of delivery, and since his time really fair pitching has been rarely seen on the ball-field. The rules, it is true, prohibit throwing, but the difficulty is in being able to define what is an underhand throw. We can readily rule out an overhand throw, or a palpable jerk, but where is the authority competent to perceive this well-disguised underhand throwing of the ball; and, after all, this underhand throwing business does no harm to the game. In effectiveness against skillful batsmen the swiftest pitching–or underhand throwing in reality–costs more than it yields. But few catchers can support it, and what with missed chances of foul tips and passed balls, and the impossibility of putting out players from throwing to bases from it, it does not begin to pay as well as strategy in pitching. To be consistent, the next time Chapman set as umpire he should rule out every swift underhand throwing who faces him, for it White does it all our swift pitchers do it.

Rule 6 was amended by adding a clause to section 6 prohibiting any fence from being erected within ninety feet of the home base, unless it be to mark the boundary of the grounds, in which case, if it be less than 90 feet distant, all passed balls touching such fence are to give one base.

The [amateur] Convention afterward adopted the new rules for play which were passed at the November Convention, with the addition of a clause dividing the fraternity into two classes, and prohibiting the amateur clubs from playing professionals.

...

...the Convention expressly prohibited any club in the Association from devoting one cent of any gate-money receipts in compensating players in any form or shape, a penalty for violation of the rules being expulsion from the Association. Consequently no cooperative nine can enter the Association. At the same time there is nothing in the constitution of the Association in the rules which they adopted which either prohibits them from sharing in gate-money receipts, for the purposes of paying for ground expenses, or for outlays incurred on tours; nor is there anything which prevents their playing with professional clubs. But all such games are, by the above rule, rendered irregular, and such as cannot be counted either in the Association record or averages of the season’s play, as all such games are outside affairs, the only regular Association games being those played by members of the Association, one with the other.

Umpires must allow players running to first base the privilege of over-running the base without being put out, that being one of the new rules of the game. In observing this rule they must be guided by the following instructions:

First.–The moment the player has over-run the first base he must promptly return and touch it before attempting to run to second base, or otherwise he forfeits the exemption the rule admits of.

Second.–If a player in running to first base, turns on reaching the base and continues one, as in the case of making a home run, he does not over-run the base, as referred to in the rule in question, and therefore is as liable to be put out when off the base as he is at any other base.

Third.–A player over-running first base can, of cours, continue on and go to second base, but by doing so he runs the risk of being put out in attempting to return to first base; that is, he forfeits the privilege of exemption from being put out after over-running the base, unless he promptly returns and touches first base after over-running it. He is not obliged to return and touch the base again, however, in over-running it, if he thinks he can get to second safely, but in such case the umpire must see that the player does not infringe the rule which prohibits the base runner from running out of the line of the bases to avoid the ball in the hands of the fielder.

[Boston vs. Olympic of Washington at Union Grounds Brooklyn 5/27/1871] Leonard opened play at the bat in this innings by popping up a high foul ball, which Spaulding ran in to take on the fly as the ball was falling near the line of the base. Seeing this Leonard–who could just as readily have run on either one side or other of Spaulding, without at all losing ground in his effort to reach first base–ran deliberately up against Spaulding, and thereby he plainly prevented him from making his catch, as also McVey from taking the ball on the bound. Leonard’s action was not only a piece of unfair play unworthy of an honorable ball player, but a plain violation of the rules which prohibit any base runner from obstructing a fielder when trying to catch a ball, for which he should have promptly been decided out by the Umpire. The rule governing the play is as follows: Fule 6, Soc 2 reads:–“Any play who shall intentionally prevent an adversary from catching or fielding the ball, shall be declared out.” This Leonard did without question. And as regard the intention, sec. 0 of Rue 4 th reads:–“Any obstruction that could readily have been avoided, shall be considered intentional.” That Leonard could readily have avoided a collision with Spaulding none will gainsay who saw the play. In the brief discussion which ensued in regard to the occurrence, it was claimed that Leonard had a right to run on the line of his base, and that no fielder had a prior right to field a ball on the line, or to cause the base runner to run off the line. This is not so, and no such law has ever been observed. In equity as well as by rule the player running to catch the ball has the right of way. In regard to the rule referring to running out of the line of the base, that is only in force when the ball is in the hands of a fielder, not otherwise. Leonard’s action was inexcusable and illegal, and the decision rendered was a misinterpretation of the rules.

[Resolute of Elizabeth vs. Champion of Jersey City 7/21/1871] [The umpire] allowed ball after ball which was pitched over the striker’s head, and which touched the ground before reaching the home-base, to go by without being called, when the rules expressly require that every such unfair ball must be called in the order of its delivery. He also allowed the strikers to call for a “waist” ball, something the rules prohibit, the striker only being allowed to call for either a high or low ball, and he must strike at the balls called for when delivered, or strikes must be called on him.

[George M. Roth vs. Marion 9/13/1871] It was ridiculous to see good, safe batsmen stand up to the plate, and ask for a low ball, and strike at one far over their head, and if the umpire should call one strike, this would intimidate them so, that they would hit at one behind them. Evening City Item September 14, 1871

the Elysian Fields closed

The famous old ball grounds in the Elysian Fields is no longer available for players. Placards are posted around it, inscribed:--”Ball playing is prohibited on these grounds under penalty of the law.” New York Evening Telegram September 15, 1871

On the 5 th instant it is said that there were twenty-one games of base ball at New Orleans. They must have it quite severely there. A proposition to innoculate children for base ball is under consideration by numerous anxious parents and the Board of Physicians. Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch November 19, 1871

In the extreme South November is the inaugural month of the championship season, and the New Orleans Baseball park is now every week the scene of contests for the championship of the South. New York Sunday Mercury November 26, 1871

pool selling on the grounds

One of the first acts at the special meeting of the association in Philadelphia on November 3, was the adoption of a rule prohibiting pool selling and open betting on the professional ball grounds of the country, a custom which was introduced this season at the Union Grounds, Brooklyn, and adopted on the Chicago ball grounds, much to the injury of professional ball playing. New York Sunday Mercury November 26, 1871

All the up-town fraternity make Billy McLean’s, No. 929 Girard avenue, their headquarters. Billy has recently fitted up a gymnasium, where most of the prominent ball-tossers are exercising for the coming season. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury January 28, 1872

Billy McLean has opened a gymnasium at his hotel, No. 929 Girard avenue, and all the “ball-tossers” of that section of the city are to be found practising there and getting themselves in trim for the coming season. Billy intends enlarging his hotel shortly and introducing several new features. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury February 18, 1872

the case for legal underhand throwing

In regard to section 5, which is not altered [in draft rules by Harry Wright], it is questionable whether it would not be best to limit the prohibitions of throwing to over-hand throwing, leaving it optional with the ball “tosser,” “pitcher” or “thrower,” as the case may be, to send the ball in as he likes, either by a square pitch, like that of Martin, or by a well-disguised under-hand throw, such as that indulged in by nearly every swift so-called pitcher, from Creighton down to the professional experts of 1871. The only objection to jerked or underhand throws, in the delivery of the ball, is in the ability of the catcher to hold them; for the difficulty of hitting, there is no more than in hitting a swiftly overthrown ball, provided it is thrown straight to the bat and where the striker wants it. This prohibiting throwing and jerking of the ball by rule, while allowing it in actual play, is a farce. Either keep the delivery to a legitimate pitcher–or swift tossing of the ball–or let the pitcher send it in as he pleases, provided he does not throw it over-hand. New York Clipper February 3, 1872

The time has arrived when the code of rules in base ball should no longer be burdened with any dead letter laws, and one of the principal of this class which has been longer on the statute books than any other, is that which required the pitcher to confine himself to the simple act of tossing, known as “pitching.”

In the early days of the game, before the advent of Creighton, the ball was generally delivered by a square pitch, the pitchers of that day depending more upon strategic skill for success than upon anything else in their style of delivery. But when Creighton came upon the scene, and inaugurated the style of delivery which by courtesy has been called “swift pitching,” the old style was not long in becoming defunct, and since then speed has been regarded as the great desideratum.

In 1858, during the visit of the English cricketers to this country, Creighton was one day bowling in a little practice game of cricket while John Lillywhite was looking on. Creighton at the time was noted as the great swift “pitcher” of the day, and was bowling just as he pitched in base ball. While watching him Lillywhite quietly remarked, “why, that man is not bowling, he is throwing under-hand.” On watching closer, however, he qualified his remark by saying that “it is the best disguised under-hand throwing I ever saw, and might readily be mistaken for a fair delivery.” But two or three persons heard the comments of the noted cricketer, and as there was nothing ever said further about its legitimacy, Creighton’s delivery was never questioned in the base ball fraternity, at least to an extent that at all prevented him from playing in this position, and the result was that he became the model player in that swift style of delivery which has ever since been erroneously styled “swift pitching.”

The different between a pitched ball and an underhand throw, as far as the style of delivery is concerned, is, that a pitched ball is sent in with a straight arm, swinging perpendicularly to the side of the body, while an under-hand throw is made by the same swinging motion, but with the addition of bending the arm and wrist with a motion similar to that made when snapping a whip. Some men can disguise an underhand throw so as to make it difficult to tell whether the throwing motion is made or not; but the speed tells the story, it being impossible to send in a ball with the speed McBride, Zettlein, or any of the so called pitchers of the day do by a really square pitch. The curved line delivery such as that which marks Cummings’ style, is also impossible, except by means of an underhand throw. In fact, if the matter were thoroughly investigated by old and experienced judges, there is no a so-called swift pitcher in the country who would not be convicted of sending in “lightning balls” by means of a well disguised underhand throw.

The question naturally arises, therefore, if there has been little else than throwing for the past ten years, while such a style of delivery has been year by year prohibited by the rules, why is it that it has not been shown up before this? Because just such experience as this style of delivery introduced was necessary to a full development of th game, and hence has it been winked at, if not countenanced. As we said before, however, the time has arrived when the rules should be cleared of this prohibition of throwing the ball to the bat, at least to the extent of allowing any delivery except that of an overhand or raised arm throw.

It will be remembered that the controversy last spring in regard to the rule admitting of underhand throwing as a legitimate style of delivering the ball to the bat was marked by assertions that the rule would “kill the game,” etc. The experience of the working of the new rule has amply proved what we asserted in its behalf in the early part of the season, viz., that underhand throwing having practically been a rule of the game since the days of Creighton, it was absurd to prohibit it by statute while allowing it by custom; and, moreover, that there was no legitimate objection to its working favorably in the interests of the game at large. This rule will be continued in force by the amateur fraternity, and no doubt the professionals will see the uselessness of any longer allowing a small minority of their class to oppose on the old fogy grounds they do.

Pitching in base ball has been brought down to more of a science than the originators of the game ever dreamed of. The duties of a first-class pitcher now require a far greater amount of skill than formerly appertained to the position, and especially has a marked improvement in the style of the delivery of the ball to the bat been noticeable within the past year.

...

It should be borne in mind that no matter how swift a player can deliver the ball to the bat by this or that method, the speed must always be governed by the ability of the catcher to stop and hold the ball. If, therefore, a player is found who can either pitch or throw a ball to the bat with more than ordinary speed, no rule is required to prohibit the delivery which admits of it, as the speed itself is prohibitory in its effect, from the lack of any player able to stop or hold the ball from such a delivery. Therefore so long as the speed is only such as will admit of the ball being caught being the bat, such delivery, whether by underhand throwing or jerking, should be regarded as legitimate.

But speed is no longer regarded as the point of excellence in a pitcher; on the contrary experience has conclusively shown that mere speed, without the accompanying essentials of a thorough command of the ball and judge in its delivery, is too costly a feature to be made available in winning matches, except against a party of the merest tyros in a practical knowledge of the game. The great essential of success in the position if the ability to outwit the batsman. If you can achieve this object by intimidating him by your speed, and thereby deceiving his sight, well and good; but his cannot be done against experienced and plucky batsmen. The scientific pitcher no a-days is he who, with the aid of a swift delivery and a thorough command of the ball, has also sound judgment to assist him. Such a one will send in one ball swiftly, another slowly, and in every legitimate way use his best endeavors to bother the sight and judgment of the batsman; in other words, he will try his best to send him in a ball he cannot hit. The habit of sending in swift “pacers,” without any idea as to where the ball is going after it leaves the pitcher’s hands, and with no other object in view save that fo delivering it as swift as possible, is a style of delivery which now only marks the play of the poorest pitchers in the fraternity. Wild pitching is now properly punished by the rule governing the calling of balls, every all illegitimately wide of the bat being an “unfair fall” and that must be called. To conclude our preface, we have to state that the model pitcher of the period, as far as the delivery of the ball is concerned, is he who has a thorough command of the ball, the judgment to direct its delivery with effect, and the pluck, nerve and endurance to face hot balls and to stand being punished without “losing his head,” or becoming demoralized.

The new code of rules governing the contests in the professional arena for the coming season is a decided improvement over the crude code of 1872. One noteworthy amendment is that which prohibits all clubs entering for the championship from participating in any “exhibition” or “tournament” contests with any other side in the arena until each have played their quota of championship games. The application of this rule last season would have saved the fraternity from the discreditable result of some of the October contests.

[Mutual vs. Athletic 6/9/1873] On the fifth inning, Anson astonished the fielders, (who were expecting a heavy hit,) by a strategic safety-block, (a mere tip,) between 3d and “home,”... All-Day City Item June 10, 1873

editorial abuse of umpires not calling balls

An explanatory treatise upon the rules is needed for the special use of ignorant umpires. The expression “all unfair balls must be called in the order of their delivery,” is not understood, and should be better expressed. “You ignorant ass! You miserable donkey! You blarsted fool! If you don’t call every unfair ball just as that ere pitcher slams it in, you’ll git imprisoned for a period of not less than fifty days, with a fine of $100.” This might make matters right. Or, if a clause should be inserted in the rule, which would compel the umpire to be publicly kicked every time he failed to call an unfair ball, some improvement might be effected. Or, that he be compelled to leave the umpire’s position upon a failure to call three unfair balls while the batter is waiting. All-Day City Item June 10, 1873

[a resolution adopted by the club:] “Whereas, the language and behavior which are incident to the betting within the pavilion of the Philadelphia Club have occasioned much annoyance to those who are subjected to their objectionable features, or else compelled to retire from the seats which they should be privileged to enjoy; and whereas, of late this custom has given such unlicensed scope to that particular class as permits them to congregate together and, by loud and boisterous exclamations, to interfere with the nine whilst playing, and as well disregard the wishes of our subscribers, whose support in the future cannot be expected if this is continued; therefore, be it

“Resolved, That the Philadelphia Club, in its earnest support of the national game of base ball, emphatically denounces this pernicious practice, as tending to pervert an athletic amusement into a mean and unfair gambling scheme; and, therefore, strictly prohibits any bet, or offer to bet, to be made within its pavilion by any person whatsoever; and hereby cautions any party so offending that such an offense will hereafter result in the forfeiture of the seats of the parties so offending.

The Baltimore American of Nov. 1 says, in referring to Cummings, that “after giving him ample time to report for duty or to present some good excuse for his absence, the officers of the Baltimore Club dishonorably dismissed him.” This act throws Cummings out of the arena for 1874, as the rule prohibits any expelled player from taking part in a match game. New York Clipper November 8, 1873

the ten-man ten-inning game

On Thursday next, if the weather is fine, the Atlantic and Mutual Clubs will practically illustrate the features of the new game of ball for 1874 in an exhibition match in which ten players will take part on each side, and ten innings be played. The new positions will be at “right short.” If the two tens play up to their mark the prospect is that the game will not only be the shortest on record but one marked by the smallest score. New York Sunday Mercury November 2, 1873

The ten men and innings game which Ferguson had arranged to play with the Mutual nine and his club on Thursday last did not take place, though the day appointed was a remarkably fine one, and quite a crowd of spectators would have been present; but the refusal of the Mutuals to play any more this season prevented the game. New York Sunday Mercury November 9, 1873

On Thursday last about a thousand people were attracted to the Athletic ball grounds in Philadelphia, the occasion being the first match played by professionals under the new rule–which will be in vogue in 1874–of ten men and ten innings. The contestants were ten of the Athletic and Philadelphia Clubs, and the game was arranged for the benefit of the left fielder of the Philadelphia nine. New York Sunday Mercury November 9, 1873

A “square” pitch is made by the swing of the arm while it is kept as nearly straight as possible, and while it swings perpendicularly to the side of the body of the pitcher as he himself stands in an upright position. This is an underhand pitch. A “round-arm” pitch–as in cricket–is made by a similar swing, so far as the arm being nearly straight, but with the arm swinging at an angle of forty-five degrees from the body–or of less of a side-swing, but nevertheless such a swing as to take the arm from the perpendicular motion of a square underhand pitch. A “jerk” is made when the arm is swung forward, as in the case of an underhand pitch, but at the same time is allowed to touch the side of the body, by which means an additional impetus is given it. By jerking, however, the ball can never be delivered so swiftly as by an underhand throw, nor so accurately. But as jerking can never be brought in use advantageously, its prohibition is needless. Any style of overhand throwing, however, should be rules out, as it enables a man to send in a ball more swiftly and accurately than any other style of delivery. We have consequently, stopped at this point; and in addition, in order to enable the umpire to decide clearly as to the legal style of delivery, we have allowed the ball to be delivered in any way that the pitcher chooses, except by a direct overhand throw, and except by the round-arm style of the bowling delivery peculiar to cricket–the latter being ruled out for the rules that in the perpendicular swing of the arm the pitcher has all the latitude for underhand throwing he needs for speed in strategic pitching, without getting in a disguised overhand throw, as he might were he allowed a round-arm swing.

In the comments made on Rule Fifth by a writer in a Philadelphia paper, he mistakenly asserts that the rule of underhand throwing never has passed a convention. Now, the rule of delivery which unanimously passed the Baltimore convention of March, 1872, was as follows: “Rule Second.–Sec. 3. Whenever the player delivering the ball to the bat shall throw it by an overhand or round-arm throw, the umpire shall declare a foul balk.” Now, this is the only deliver which was then prohibited. As for returning to the old wording, that is useless, inasmuch as it opens the door to endless disputes as to what an umpire thinks constitutes a throw; and if square pitching were enforced, the ball would be knocked all over the field, and an end would be put to the fine fielding games incident to the underhand throw delivery.

[reporting on the professional convention] ...Aleck Davidson, of the Mutuals being the only one that favored the useless and visionary innovation of the ten men and ten innings; and when he was asked where he would place this extra man, he replied, that he could occupy any position in the field, right, short stop or any where else where he might prove useful in keeping down the score of the club at the bat, and thus improve the game; and he stated that it was needed in New York to renew the interest in the game. David L. Reid [delegate of the Philadelphia Club] effectually answered his arguments by stating that the true cause of the decline of the game in New York and vicinity, was the suspicious playing of some of the professionals connected with their clubs, and that in Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore and Washington, where the game had been played on its own merits, there was fully as much interest taken in base ball as ever, and as ninety-nine out of every hundred of professional and amateur players were opposed to the ten men and ten innings rule, it was useless wasting time talking about it, and he moved the Mr. Davidson’s amendment be tabled, and it was by the decisive vote of six to one. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury March 8, 1874

[The report of the professional convention] After the election [of officers], Mr. D. B. Reed, of the Philadelphias, presented a long and elaborate series of playing rules and championship code, prepared with great care by Mr. Henry Chadwick. It involves several changes, which were generally received with favor.

...

...all exhibitions are prohibited until each club has played its championship game to a close, except when clubs play exhibition games under the ten-men rule, so that, after all, the new game has received a semi-endorsement. New York Sunday Mercury March 8, 1874

...in regard to delivering the ball, and the new rules, while allowing an underhand throw, require that the arm in delivery must swing perpendicularly. Any side throw is a “foul ball” and three foul balls give the game as forfeited. The umpire is now obliged to call “wide ball” whenever the ball is sent in out of the batsman’s reach. And he must count–but not “call”–every ball that is not “wide” and yet not over the base or “high” or “low,” as called for as one of the class of balls to be called one ball for every third ball of the kind delivered. This new rule gives considerable latitude to the batsman, and puts a stop to a wild, unfair delivery of the ball by the pitcher.

The umpire now can only call strikes on the batsman when the latter refuses to strike at a ball sent in over the home base, and high or low as called for. He cannot, however, call strikes for refusing to strike at any other kind of ball.

...

Three wide balls in succession give a base, but no base can be given on called balls, until nine such balls have been delivered, not including wides; which are separate from called balls. New York Sunday Mercury April 12, 1874

A LEGITIMATE DELIVERY.–In regard to whether the ball is delivered to the bat by a legitimate delivery or not, the umpire must be guided by the relative positions of the wrist and hand when the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand. If his hand be not extended out sideways from his body while he is an upright position, the swing of the arm is a legitimate one. It does not matter what the angle of the arm from the elbow to the hand is, so long as the hand is not swung out from the body.

Any style of round-arm delivery is prohibited. The delivery must be by a nearly perpendicular swing of the arm, and this delivery admits of an underhand throw, or what is called a “wrist-throw.” Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch April 12, 1874

The umpire shall require the players on the batting side who are not at the bat, nor running the bases, to keep at a distance of not less than fifty feet from the line of home and first base and home and third base, or farther off if the umpire so decides, except the captain and one assistant, such only to be permitted to approach the foul line not nearer than fifteen feet to coach the players running the bases...

The object of the rule is to prevent any such interference with the field side as used to be indulged in when the “in” side would crowd round the bases, and by their language and noise either intimidate or bother a base-player or fielder so that he could not really play his game.

A decision was rendered in the Mutual and Boston match of May 2 which calls for special comment. The was this: Nelson, who was at the bat, had made one strike without hitting the ball; another strike had been called on him, when, in making a third strike–again missing the ball–he stepped outside his position–six feet by three, and one foot distant from the base–whereupon the umpire called “Foul strike,” in accordance with Section 3 of Rule V. A question was then raised as to whether Nelson was out on the third strike, as referred to in Section 14 of the same rule, the umpire deciding him out, and then not out.

The intention of the rule of “Foul Strikes” was to prohibit the batsman from either running in to meet the ball, and thereby gaining one advantage, or, by standing too far bak, to gain another. The penalty consists of his being decided out on three such foul strikes–that is, supposing he should not offer the fielders any other chance to put him out. Should he do so, however, he must be decided out, according. Thus, if the ball be hit on such a foul strike, and caught, fair or oful, he is out; also, if he strike at it, and fail to hit it on such “foul strike,” and it happens to be the third strike called–as in Nelson’s case–he should be decided out. That is the spirit of the rule, and its letter does not say to the contrary, though a correction in the wording is needed. At any rate, as it is, the case is one of those which the umpire is at liberty to decided by his right as sole judge of fair and unfair play; and fair play undoubtedly would decide the striker out on the third called strike. New York clipper May 16, 1874

the ideology of low scores and fielding

The chance of seeing a fine fielding game, marked by a small score, is the great incentive to the gathering of paying crowds at professional games this season, heavy batting games with large scores no longer being tolerated by the best judges of the game.

It is really surprising to see players who are paid for the performance of special duties as umpires now are so incompetent to perform such duties. They either will not study the rules from the official book, or they lack the sense to comprehend them. In the interpretation of the rule of calling wides, and in the face of the plain wording of the section, two umpires last week called every ball a wide that was not over the base or where the striker called for it; moreover, they counted wides as balls, and instead of calling every third such ball they called balls on one. The rule of wide balls actually prohibits the calling of wide on any ball that is within fair reach of the bat, and it only allows of the calling of wides on balls which are out of possible reach of the batsman while he stands within the lines of his position. Thus every ball which touches the ground in front of the home base must be called a “wide.” Also every ball sent in over the batsman’s head that is out of reach. Also every ball sent in on the side opposite tot hat he bats from. Also all balls which are sent in over the striker’s position. All these, and none other, are wide balls, and any umpire who calls wides on balls which should only be counted as “balls,” is required by the rules to be promptly dismissed from his position unpaid. New York Sunday Mercury May 17, 1874

[Mutual vs. Athletic 6/5/1874] York’s umpiring was impartial, but, it is evident, this handsome young gentleman has not read the rules carefully. He falls into Clapp’s error of calling “1 ball” on the second pitch; the rule says it cannot be called until the third pitch. Perhaps Mr. York thinks “a wide” and “a ball” mean the same thing? We imagine this is so, as he gave McGeary a base on one ball and two wides! This is a new interpretation, and it is hardly according to the rules. We hope Mr. York will be more careful in the future. Philadelphia All-Day City Item June 7, 1874

[Athletic vs Mutual 6/12/1874] The umpire allowed too many players to act as “coachers.” The rules prohibit any but the captain and one assistant from acting as coachers. In this game, however, Anson made himself prominent, and kept too near the base-lines, as did others of the nine. This, umpires should stop.

[Boston vs. Athletic 9/10/1874] Leonard [at first base]...ran to second, and slid in beautifully under Fisler [second baseman], who handled the ball rather slowly, which Clapp [catcher] threw to him, and, on appeal, the umpire said “Not out.” After listening to remarks by the Athletic players, he changed his decision, in direct violation of the rules, which prohibit any reversal of a decision on the testimony of players in cases of bases being run.

As far as violation of the rules prohibiting the employment of players as the end of the season is concerned, scarcely a club in the country is safe. The best way this year is to overlook all and to announce that next year the rule will be rigidly enforced.

The only point to be decided...in regard to the delivery of the ball, is what shall constitute a fair underhand throw, and to make a rule clearly defining this is now needed. Any delivery of the ball should be regarded as fair that is marked by a swing of the arm which does not allow the hand holding the ball to be raised above the hip. This admits of a clearly defined rule prohibiting overhand throwing and a round-arm delivery.

Experience has shown that the beauty of pitching is strategic delivery, and this is impossible unless the player who delivers the ball is allowed a method of delivery which admits of a combination of speed and accuracy of aim, or command of the ball, and this the underhand throw alone does. Of course it is proper that overhand throwing should be prohibited, though in reality it would not be as effective as that of underhand. It is well too to prevent the round-arm style of delivery as in bowling in cricket. But the pitcher in baseball should be allowed the privilege either to pitch the ball–viz., toss it to the bat, jerk it–a less effective style than the underhand throw–or deliver it by an underhand throw, provided that in the movement in swinging his arm forward to deliver the ball by such a throw he does not raise his hand above the hip. This should be the rule. To liit the delivery of the ball to “a square pitch” would be to return to the old time rule of heavy batting, long games, large scores and the bound catch of our school-boy games of twenty years ago. In fact, no such splendid displays of the beauties of baseball as have been shown this past season could have been exhibited except under the rule of an underhand throw delivery governed by the rule “wide balls.

The pitcher is now obliged to deliver the ball to the bat with the arm swinging nearly perpendicular at the side of his body, and with the arm swinging forward, not higher than his hip. ... the underhand throwing–with the hand above the line of the hip–has been prohibited. New York Sunday Mercury March 7, 1875

the rule on wides repealed

Every ball sent in over the home base and at the height called for, is “a fair ball,” and must be struck at, while every ball not so sent in is “an unfair ball,” and must be called a ball in the order of every third ball delivered, counting the first ball pitched. The rule calling wides was repealed on the ground that the call of “wide” sounded too much like “strike.” New York Sunday Mercury March 7, 1875

[Mutual vs field 4/10/1875] The new rule on calling balls worked satisfactorily, and umpires will evidently have less trouble in this matter than they had last season. New York Sunday Mercury April 11, 1875

The pitching rule of the amateur code now prohibits the raising of the arm swung forward above the line of the hip. This prevents of last season, but admits of the same kind of underhand throwing all of the professional pitchers indulge in.

Some of the regular amateur clubs in the convention tried to pass a rule prohibiting any phase of professionalism by the Amateur Association clubs, but the gate-money influence out-voted them, and so the convention simply prohibited players being paid except in the case of “traveling expenses.” It si simply “whipping the devil round the stump.” Instead of giving a players a salary, or a present, he is given traveling expenses. There can be but one rule for amateur clubs defining their status, and that is the rule defining an amateur player to be one who is not compensated for his services on the field, either by “money, place or emolument.” For 1875, therefore, under the ruling of the convention, there will be two classes of amateurs, viz.: those who go from place to place, sharing gate-money receipts under the name of “traveling expenses,” and those who, like the Knickerbocker club, always pay their own expenses, and never share in receipts of any kind for any purpose. In the metropolis, here, the former class of amateurs will play on enclosed grounds, such as the Capitoline and Fair Ground ball fields, while the regular amateur clubs will play only on free grounds.

[see PSD 4/4/1875 for a lengthy discussion]

last year’s high underhand pitching

The new rule in relation to pitching prohibits the high underhand throwing of last season, as it says that “The ball must be delivered to the bat with the arm swinging nearly perpendicular to the side of the body, and the hand swinging forward shall not be raised above the hip.

The seven professional clubs of Massachusetts have got up an association of their own, of which the Live Oaks, of Lynn; the Taunton and Lowell clubs, and Suffolk, of Boston, are the principal members; also the Fall River Club. Philadelphia Item March 20, 1876

The annual meeting of the New England Amateur Association was held at Boston, March 27. The following clubs were represented: Suffolk, of Boson; Fall River, of Fall Rive; Taunton, of Taunton; Lowell, of Lowell; Live Oaks, of Lynn; Rhode Island, of Providence. The New Haven Club, of New Haven, Conn., was admitted to membership. The application of the Fly Away Club, of Boston, for membership was laid on the table. Mr. Rotch, from the committee previously appointed, reported a constitution which, after considerable discussion, was adopted. Prominent among the articles forced on was one that only one club in a city shall belong to the association. Many of the better rules laid down by the National League were adopted, but in regard to the engaging of players the constitution prohibits any signing of contract between a player in an association club and a manager of another club in the association before Nov. 1. Philadelphia Item April 2, 1876

Athletic Club finances

An adjourned meeting of the Athletic Association of Base Ball Players was held last night at their new headquarters, Theurer’s Hall, No. 1108 Sansom street, Mr. Chas. Spering in the chair, with Al. Wright secretary.

The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved. The Treasurer’s report showed a balance on hand, March 16 th, of $166.30. Directors report that the City Solicitor had giving an opinion that they were entitled to the exclusive use of the ground... ...they had also formed a reserve nine, composed of the best amateur talent of the city. Philadelphia Item March 21, 1876

An adjourned monthly meeting of the Athletic Base Ball Club was held last Monday evening at No. 1108 Sansom street. Despite the inclement weather the attendance was quite large, one hundred and ten shares of stock being found to be represented, one hundred shares being necessary to constitute a quorum. Charles Spering occupied the chair in the absence of the president, Thomas J. Smith. The Treasurer’s report was a highly satisfactory one, exhibiting, as it did, a balance of $166.20. The directors reported that through the courtesy of the Olympic Club, the use of their club house for dressing purposes had been tendered to the Athletics, thus making it unnecessary to use their former headquarters, which were obnoxious on account of the pool-selling carried on there. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury March 26, 1876

The annual meeting of the New England Amateur Association was held at Boston, March 27. ... Prominent among the articles agreed on was one that only one club in a city shall belong to the association. Many of the better rules adopted by the National League were adopted, but in regard to the engaging of players the constitution prohibits any signing of contracts between a player in an association club and a manager in another club in the association before Nov. 1. New York Sunday Mercury April 2, 1876

rules amendments: number of called strikes; no putting runners out on uncaught foul balls, tagging up on foul flies; high and low strike zones

There are but three changes worthy of notice in the playing rules lately adopted by the league and just now published. One of these relates to the manner of calling “strikes,” and the other two to bas-running on foul balls. “Strikes” one and two are called the same as previously. When two strikes have been called, should the batsman fail to strike at the next good ball, the umpire does not call ‘three strikes,” as before, but warns the batsman by saying “good ball.” If the next good ball which goes by is not struck at, he calls “three strikes.” This rule only gives the batsman an additional chance. The rules relative to foul balls give base runners the following new privileges: When a foul ball is knocked and not caught on the fly, players running bases may return without being put out. When a foul is caught on the fly players may run to bases under the same restrictions as when fair balls are caught on the fly. This does not do away with the necessity of returning a foul knocked ball into the pitcher’s hands to get it into play again, but it prevents any harm coming to base runners by reason of such foul balls. Section 5 of the rules says that a batsman is privileged to call for a “high ball,” a “low ball,” or “fair ball.” “Fair ball” in this connection is a new term, and means a ball delivered within the range of the shoulder and one foot above the ground, that is, includes both “high” and “low” balls. New York Sunday Mercury April 2, 1876

This, of course, does away with any chance of the umpire being partial in calling fouls, for it will matter nothing whether he calls a foul early or late. Philadelphia Sunday Mercury March 5, 1876

[describing the Union grounds] A large sign, painted on the fence immediately behind the catcher, reads: “Betting absolutely prohibited,” and Mr. Cammeyer promises to see that this rule is stringently enforced. Indeed, he is obliged to do it in accordance with his association rule, or he will be expelled.

Up to 1875 there existed on these [Union] grounds a betting exchange. This has been done away with, and a rule established and duly enforced prohibiting all open betting on the grounds, under penalty of immediate ejection from the inclosure.

There is a movement on foot looking to the formation of an anti-League association among such clubs as the Buckeyes, Indianapolis, Alleghenies, Aetnas, Harrisburgs, Neshannocks, St. Louis Red Stockings, Rhode Islands, Syracuse Stars, and others of this class. An admission fee to games of 25 cents is proposed, also an article of agreement prohibiting the playing of exhibition games with League clubs. Philadelphia Item September 3, 1876

Mr. L. C. Waite, secretary of the St. Louis Red Stockings, has sent out circulars to the semi-professional clubs, proposing a non-league association, and inviting an expression of opinion upon the subject. The author of the circular suggests that under no circumstances should the clubs of the association play League clubs, and that only 25 cents admission to games be charged. New York Sunday Mercury October 22, 1876

Seeing how low the standard of baseball was becoming, the secretary of the St. Louis Reds (Mr. Waite), desiring to rescue it from further degradation, addressed letters to all the leading non-League clubs in the country. Favorable responses were received. The movement was encouraged, and its success is fully assured. New York Sunday Mercury January 21, 1877 [see NYSM 2/25/1877 for the report of the founding convention.]

[Spalding’s letter to those “semi-professional as he deemed most likely to consider it leisurely and with fairness” proposing the League Alliance:] There was considerable discussion at Cleveland, and I see there is still some going on in the papers, about the relations between the League and the clubs that are not members of it. Having always been well-treated by non-League Clubs, and having always taken an interest in them, I have given considerable attention to this subject, and have always urged a liberal and paternal policy toward such clubs by the League, believing such to be the interest of both classes. I think I may safely say that I found all the delegates at Cleveland disposed to do the suare thing by other clubs, and their legislation bears substantial evidence of that fact. The League “Address to the Public” contains good reasons why the general class of other clubs should not undertake the obligations of League membership, but the Convention legislates as far as it could to give other clubs the benefit of League membership, while imposing upon them none of the burdens. There are three things that all clubs which hire players require:

1. A uniform system of playing rules.

2. A tribunal to determine disputes between clubs.

3. Security against “revolving” of players.

The first two the League has provided for all clubs that choose to accept them; as to the third, it is impossible for the League to do anything without the formal consent of the clubs interested. Since the Convention adjourned I have been talking with several members of outside clubs, as well as with officers of League clubs, and have been trying to devise some scheme that would cover this vital point, and have come to the conclusion that the inclosed form of agreement will accomplish the objects in view better than any other methods, for the following reasons:

1. It will secure you a system of playing rules that will doubtless be adopted by all the clubs in the country.

2. It will secure you a tribunal to determine disputes that is more liable to be impartial than one chosen from the clubs among whom the disputes may arise, and well fitted by long experience in base-ball, and by their responsible positions in the League, to pass judgment upon questions of such a character.

3. It will give you a far better security against “revolving” of your players than could be afforded you by any independent association, inasmuch as it employs the machinery of the League clubs to take notice of your contracts and your expulsions of players, leaving them no excuse for not complying with the terms of the new League law, prohibiting them from capturing your players.

4. It saves you the expense and inconvenience of instituting a central organization of your own, which it might be difficult for you to constitute so as to have the strength and reliability of the League.

5. It leaves each of your clubs entirely independent to manage its own affairs in its own way.

6. It would establish relations between the League and your clubs well calculated to advance the substantial interests of both.

As various schemes have been proposed, I send you this one for your consideration, because I believe it to be the strongest and best, and, as I have already told you that I take a great deal of interest in this matter of the relations of the clubs to each other, I would like to know what you think of it. Yours, truly, A. G. Spalding. Chicago Tribune January 21, 1877

The great objection we have to the proposition of the League, and it covers all others... is this: The plan, if adopted, gives the entire control of the base ball interests of the country into the hands of a few men, who can almost be counted on one’s fingers. All respect to the gentlemen to whom this may seem persona.. They may be assured that nothing personal is intended. Players have no powers of legislation. This now lies, and is left by the proposed form of agreement, with the management of six clubs, or better, the delegates of those clubs who may be sent to the League conventions. These gentlemen may always legislate wisely; but if they should not, where, by the proposed plan, is the redress? As a matter of fact, what has past legislation been? What rule was adopted at Cleveland for the especial benefit of players, and what for the benefit of non-league clubs? The convention passed acts, assessing a burdensome tax upon players, and affixed a penalty such that, if they would not submit, they could never thereafter secure engagements with League clubs. About how long would it be, if the non-league clubs were brought under control of the League, before this law would be so altered that players who would not submit to any requirements of the League in the direction would be prohibited from playing in non-league clubs as well? Again, this convention passed a resolve that after such a date in March the League would respect the contracts of non-league clubs. Has it occurred to anything that this is a “resolve,” not a constitution amendment, and that there is no penalty affixed for its violation? This may seem like a trifling affair, but generally it will be observed that the League has affixed severe penalties for any infringement of rules and regulations. If the League really respected the rights of non-league clubs and was solicitous for their welfare, it should have incorporated that resolve in the fundamental principles of its body, and provided that it take effect at once, instead of at a remote time, when it should have filled its quote of players. Such legislation looks narrow and partisan, and if the non-league clubs are prepared to submit their destinies to the authorship of legislation of that character–well, they have a perfect right to do so, but let them do so with eyes wide open to the probabilities and possibilities of the future. We should say, wait; wait until the League becomes more liberal; wait until it gives you a voice in its legislative councils and says, by admitting you to membership in its body, that “all men are born free and equal.” We do not side with the League, nor with the “internationals,” but do think that the best interests of the game will be subserved by the non-league clubs letting the League alone (so far as joining it is concerned) until it opens its doors. Mr. Spalding considers the League “no longer an experiment,” and probably it may be, so far as the Chicago Club is concerned, because it picked all the plums last year and divided them on the shores of Lake Michigan. But, for the other clubs remaining in the League, it were better to wait and see how they appear Nov. 15, 1877, after having attempted to play a series of twelve games, before concluding upon the success of the institution. To us, is seems a great pity that the League did not admit semi-professionals to membership in its association last December. Probably the experience of the clubs with the old association was the cause, and as man in quest of reform usually goes to extremes before setting down to solid principles, so may it happen that the close corporation system of the League will be exchanged in time for some thing, which from this standpoint seems more reasonable and enduring. Let time furnish the proof.

Tom McNeary, of the St. Louis Reds, has thrown up the sponge, and will not put a nine in the field this season. This announcement will be received with regret by the many friends of the “ponies” who have so ably represented St. Louis in past seasons. Mr. McNeary did not allow the Reds to disband without carefully considering the situation. The International Convention at Pittsburg, he claims, was a failure, the only man who would stand up for the rights of the semi-professionals being Gorman, of the Tecumsehs. No sooner had the Convention concluded its labors than half a dozen of the Internationals joined the League Alliance, without waiting to see whether an obnoxious section of the agreement would be stricken out, as the Internationals had decided it should be. ... the Reds, were they in existence, could, by the League Constitution, only play one League club in St. Louis–the Brown Stockings–other League teams being prohibited from entering their territory. For these and other reasons which carry pecuniary weight with them, the Reds have gone under. Chicago Tribune April 8, 1877, quoting the St.

The [Cincinnati] management refused to let the report of the Cincinnati-Louisville game be telegraphed to the city yesterday, although the Western Union Company had an operator on the grounds. The theory, we understand on which this was done is that those who do not go to see a game should not have the benefit of it by innings. No other place in the country has ever carried out such a policy, and we believe it is more damaging than beneficial. The public will be generous to a generous policy. We merely mention this for the financial good of the Club because he have heard a number declare they would not support a picayunish management. We are free to say this is a mistake, and believe it will be corrected. Cincinnati Enquirer May 15, 1877

We are informed that we were wrong yesterday in saying that no other place in the country prohibits the telegraphing of scores from the grounds to pool-rooms in the city. We understand that in no city is it allowed, and that the management here are simply carrying out a policy practiced in every other city where there is a Club. Cincinnati Enquirer May 16, 1877

The following has been painted in large letters on the fence of the Cincinnati grounds: “Games here are for sport alone. Betting, or offers to bet, strictly prohibited. Umpires and players shall respect the public, and, in return, should be respected.

Rumor has it that there has been proposed, and will be presented to the League Directors, a black list, consisting of the names of some fifteen or twenty suspected players. It is not the hope of proving these men guilty which induces the preparation of the list, but to put them on their good behavior and under watch. If it be publicly announced through the press in the official proceedings of the League that Messrs., Craver, Blong, Battin, McGeary, Force, Hines, Glenn and others have been suspected of overstepping the prohibition bonds drawn around them by the League, it will serve to bring them under watchful eyes and give them less chance than they had before to “act up” if they should be players of that sort.

[reporting on the NL convention] It was decided that no League Club should be allowed to play on Sunday, nor should any member be allowed to play with other Clubs on that day. The penalty for a violation of this rule is expulsion of a Club by the League and of a player by his Club. Cincinnati Enquirer December 7, 1877

[reporting on the NL convention] A resolution was passed prohibiting games from being played on Sunday on any League grounds, or for the renting of such grounds for Sunday games. An exception was, however, made of the Cincinnati Grounds because they are alone of all the League grounds owned by the Club. So the Mohawk Browns and other local amateur clubs will have their Sunday games next year as usual. Cincinnati Enquirer December 17, 1877

This coming season the experiment will be tried of giving the umpire power to punish players who are guilty of any of the abuses connected with umpiring which prevailed in 1877. By way of penalty for the violation of any rule, disgrace will sometimes produce good results, but in other instances it fails. But touch a man’s pocket in this way and you have a sure means of controlling him. Hence the principle of inflicting fines on players who violate the new code of League rules applicable to umpires. The umpire of 1878 can protect himself, and if he finds a player disputing–except in cases where a palpable misinterpretation of the rules is concerned–the infliction of a fine of ten or twenty dollars, to be deducted from the offender’s salary, will be likely to have a magical effect in taming the noted chin-music performers.

Having reason to know that this [the published Boston financials] was not true, application was made to the Boston Club for the facts, and they were courteously furnished. The following are the essential points: The gross receipts from non-League clubs outside of Boston were $4,797.53, instead of $7,516,... In the second place, the Bostons took from League clubs outside of Boston $7,494.60 instead of $4,476... Chicago Tribune January 27, 1878

no return to straight arm pitching

[reviewing the new rules] Some wiseacres wanted to return to the old rule, which prohibited every method of delivering the ball to the bat, save that of the old square pitch or toss, forgetting the important fact that thorough command of the ball with accuracy of delivery was nearly impossible under such a rule. The Convention contented itself with simply reworking the pitching rule so that the “waist” and not the “hip” should be the limit of the heighth of the hand, holding the ball, when the forward swing of the arms I s made in delivery. Brooklyn Eagle January 27, 1878

[reporting on the IA convention] [the constitution discussed:] ...discussed the clause related to the employment of players who had been expelled by other associations. The subject was an interesting one, and the question was voted upon three different times before the Association decided that players expelled from any organization should not be employed by the clubs of this Association under a penalty of forfeiture of membership. New York Clipper March 2, 1878

This suicidal measure was fathered by the delegates from Auburn, Troy and Springfield, who through it sought to make effective their negotiations with Hall, Devlin and Craver, the black sheep of the Louisville flock. It gained an adoption, during the absence of numerous members, by a vote of 8 to 6. Later in the day some of the wiser delegates discovered the mistake and sought to rectify it. Mr. Townsend of Syracuse led the good fight, but failed in three votes to get the requisite two-thirds majority necessary to secure a reconsideration. The debate waxed warm, and a disruption of the convention was imminent. The Stars, Lowells, Buffalos, Rochester and Tecumsehs threatened to withdraw unless an amendment was passed restoring the reading of the old article prohibiting the employment of any crooked player. By sheer strategy such an amendment was adopted and the premium placed on dishonest play removed. New York Clipper March 9, 1878, quoting the Syracuse Courier.

George Wright buys the patent for the catcher’s mask

George Wright induced Wm. Thayer to patent his catcher’s mask, and then bought the exclusive right to make it. New York Clipper March 2, 1878

The following are the special rules governing the Indianapolis Club for the coming season:

The excessive use of intoxicating drinks is positively prohibited, and total abstinence earnestly recommended.

Smoking not allowed on the day of playing a game of ball between the hours of 1 p.m. and the close of the game.

Players will abstain from the use of profane language both on the field and in their dressing-room, and conduct themselves in a gentlemanly manner.

Players are particularly requested not to associate with prostitutes.

All players will report to the Managers of the head-quarters each day at ten o'clock, unless previously excused.

Any violation of these rules will subject the offender to a fine of not less than $10 or more than $50, or expulsion from the Club, at the option of the Board of Directors.

[reporting on the NL meeting of 12/4/1878] The next amendment was to Article 14 of Field Rules, and was in substance the prohibition of the manager or scorer from appearing upon the field during the progress of a game. It is understood that this amendment was a direct slap at harry Wright, who, it is claimed, during the past season, often sat on the players’ bend on the field and gave his men points on the game, and told them where they could gain an advantage. Other clubs noticed this, and a feeling that it was not just the right thing got abroad among the clubs with which the Bostons played. Harry Wright was a veteran baseballist, and it was an advantage for his club to receive instructions and suggestions during the progress of a game. When this amendment was proposed it was no more than natural that Harry should “kick,” and he did, with considerable energy. A lively discussion ensued, and finally a vote was had, resulting in a victory for the amendment. The vote by clubs was as follows: Ayes–Cincinnati, Providence, Cleveland and buffalo. Nays–Boston, Chicago and Syracuse.

[reporting on the NL meeting of 12/4/1878] Mr. Spalding offered an amendment to the third clause of Sec. 12, Rule 6, by inserting the word “before” in the place of “after,” and taking out the final words of the clause “but once,” making the game a fly game throughout. This, which is about the only radical change made in the rules, was urged by Harry Wright of the Bostons and George Wright of the Providences. Considerable discussion ensued, but it was finally carried by a vote of 4 to 3. New York Clipper December 14, 1878

We now come to the amendment throwing out the bound-catch of foul balls and of bound catches from “three strikes.” This is the only radical change in the rules which the League convention adopted. In the estimate of the merits of base-ball made by unprejudiced cricketers, the putting-out of the batsman on foul balls has always been regarded as an objection, on the ground that by such play he was subject to a penalty without any opportunity being afforded him for an offsetting play at the bat. If he hits a fair fly-ball, while he runs the risk of being put out by the fly-catch, he also has the chance of making a base on a missed catch. Not so, however, in the case of the foul ball, for then he can neither make a base himself nor give his partner on the bases a chance to make one. In reducing the number of outs on foul balls, therefore, by prohibiting bound catches of such balls, a nearer approach to excellence in the game is made in a cricketer's point of view. Whether it will add to the record of base-hits and runs, by the reduced chance for outs, remains to be seen by the experience of actual play. There is one thing about this amendment, however, worthy of note, and that is that it introduces the rule of the fly-game in reality for the first time in the history of base-ball. Now no player can be put out on any caught ball that is not caught on the fly. New York Clipper December 28, 1878

[reporting on the special meeting of the League held 3/24 - 3/25/1879] For years have we endeavored to impress League club managers with the vital importance of adopting a rule prohibiting the engagement of players for an ensuing season before the expiration of the existing season. They have experimented with the subject for two years, and at last have endorsed The Clipper’s view of the matter, as will be seen by the appended agreement, which goes into effect on Tuesday, April 1.

[reporting on the special meeting of the League held 3/24 - 3/25/1879]The reamendment of the rule prohibiting bound-catches of foul balls was then taken up, and Mr. Neff of the Cincinnati Club moved that the old rule of allowing batsmen to be put out on foul-bounds and three-strike bounds be adopted, and that the action at Cleveland doing away with all bounds be rescinded. He said that such a rule would have a tendency to lengthen the game, also to destroy many beautiful plays, and, the strongest argument of all, it compelled the catcher to be up behind the bat too much. The delegates of Boston, Providence and Syracuse were opposed to the return to the old style, and claimed that all talk about fine plays, etc., was bosh, and that with the new rule the game would be more exciting to spectators, as the batsmen would be less liable to be thrown out, and the batting would necessarily be freer. Mr. Neff’s motion was passed by a vote of 5 to 3.

James Devlin, after more than a month’s hard work, pleading with the members of the judicial committee of the National Association, has been reinstated, the question being decided in his favor on June 28. The movement for his reinstatement was started in Philadelphia, a petition to the effect being signed by the entire baseball fraternity of that city, including many of the most influential and wealthy citizens. Nothing definite is know as to this future intentions, although it is rumored that he will pitch for a nine that Fergy Malone intends organizing to represent Philadelphia. New York Clipper July 5, 1879

A letter from Secretary Williams, in reply to a query in regard to the truth of the report of the removal of Devlin’s disabilities as far as the National Association is concerned, states that “an effort has been made by the Utica Club to get the constitutional clause which prohibits any expelled player being employed by a national club annulled. But the National constitution differs from the International of 1878, as it prohibits any amendment or change in its constitution or rules except at an annual meeting. The Judiciary Committee have no power now to change a single law of the Association, and consequently neither Devlin nor any other player can be given the right to paly in a National club. Only the League can reinstate him, he never having been expelled excepty by the League. The Utica Club wanted him as their pitcher, he having promised to play there if they got his disabilities removed.” New York Clipper July 12, 1879

The League season of 1879 was the most unsuccessful one, pecuniarily, known in its history; and it was due to two causes, primarily the fifty-cent tariff, and secondarily the restrictive policy [of prohibiting outside exhibitions].

...the rules for the Grand Stand prohibiting smoking or beer-selling in that department, so strictly enforced at the beginning, have been revoked, and the beer-seller passes among ladies brazenly crying out his liquor for sale, and men who claim to be gentlemen sit right in their faces. Is it a wonder that the attendance of ladies has fallen off to almost nothing.

[Worcester vs. Chicago 6/29/1880] [The bottom of the fifth inning, with rain apparently imminent] ...the Worcesters undertook to delay the game in the hope that thereby the last half of the inning would be interrupted, and “No game” be called. The Chicagos were equally anxious to get out and end the inning. Goldsmith struck at three balls four feet above his head, and made the entire circuit of the bases without an effort to put him out. At this the spectators grew indignant, and Mr. Bancroft, the manager, and Mr. Brown, the Worcester Treasurer, both exerted themselves to the utmost to have the ridiculous exhibition stopped, and ordered Bushong and Richmond to go on and play ball under pain of a fine of $25 apiece if they persisted in trifling.

In these days of better trained professional stock-company teams it is almost impossible to get together a nine which would be invincible. In 1869, when the old Cincinnati team recorded its unequaled season of uninterrupted freedom from defeat—only a drawn match prevented a succession of victories from the start to the finish—it encountered nines composed mostly of crude or unreliable material in the professional class, and unpracticed nines in the amateur. Against these the Cincinnatis presented the best-trained professional team then known to the fraternity. Now we have half a dozen just as well managed as the Cincinnatis of 1869 were, and hence the task of going through a season now without a defeat is almost impossible. New York Clipper July 24, 1880

dual membership in the League Alliance and any other organization prohibited; the end of the National Association?

...the Nationals have joined the League Alliance “for protection,” and thereby have been obliged to resign from the National Association, and consequently forfeit all claim to the National championship. … The law of the Alliance referring to clubs joining it says: “No club which is in any other organization of clubs than the League or League Alliance shall be entitled to membership.” So, good-bye to the Washington Nationals as members of the National Association or as candidates for the National championship, and thus ends “the strange, eventful history” of the Association. New York Clipper July 24, 1880

The Nationals, we are told, have not resigned from the National Association, and are therefore still claimants for the pennant, their rivals being the Rochesters. New York Clipper August 7, 1880

[reporting on the NL special meeting] Mr. Kennett, of Cincinnati, said he would not sign any such agreement [abolishing liquor sales and Sunday ball] or entertain any such proposition. The Cincinnati Club derived too big revenues from those sources to cut them off in this manner. Mr. Hulbert asked him if he could not telegraph to his Directors and gain their consent to the agreement. Mr. Kennett said it would be impossible to find them in less than two days, at least; besides, he did not see what great stew there was about this matter, any way, as it was something that would come up before the annual meeting. Mr. Root said that he had received information, through the Cincinnati Enquirer, that the local Club would not go into the League if such plan was adopted, and he wished Mr. Kennett would tell them whether or not they intended to stay in the League, as this matter would certainly be passed in December.

Mr. Kennett replied that if they had any hopes of scaring him by any such moves they were badly mistaken. They all knew that Cincinnati was opposed to the reservation policy, and that they intend to fight it out, to boot. This liquor matter was of secondary consideration tot hem now. He had come there in the interest of his Club, and he intended to stick to that. He would give no decisions on the agreement matter and did not think he was obliged to.

Mr. Hulbert said that this subject had nothing to do with the five-men policy, whereupon Mr. Kennett quickly replied that he thought that it had a great deal to do with it. He saw the dodge, but it would not work. This announcement fell like a bombshell in the enemies camp, and, on motion, it was decided to adjourn until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock. At this time inquiries were made as to what Clubs would continue in the League, and all present announced that their organizations had decided to retain their membership. Cincinnati Enquirer October 5, 1880

Mr. Kennett said he was willing to have the sale of liquor restricted to the bar under the grand stand, and he would give his word that the Directors would exert themselves to do away with the custom as fast as the prejudice in its favor could be overcome.

To this offer Mr. Hulbert replied that he failed to see how these delegates could accept any such amendment of the original articles, and did not think that they could stultify themselves, having already given their vote for the first agreement.

A resolution was then submitted to the effect that the Cincinnati Club vacated its membership in the League if its representative did not make a formal assent or negative to the agreement prohibiting Sunday games and the sale of liquors on League grounds. Seven delegates voted in favor of the resolution. Chicago Tribune October 7, 1880

[reporting on the NL special meeting in Rochester] Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Kennett what decision the Cincinnati Directors had come to, and the latter replied that he would not deviate from the stand he had taken when the Sunday and liquor agreement was first presented, he had been authorized to maintain his position, but was willing to listen to any amendment proposed as an addition to the Constitution. President Hulbert then said that the meeting could not go on with their further business until this matter was definitely settled. He wanted to know from Cincinnati whether they would vote yes or no to the agreement. If they held off any longer, the Club would forfeit its membership in the League. The subject under discussion was practically law now, as seven delegates had pledged themselves to support it at the annual meeting in December.

…

Mr. Kennett wanted to know what the great fret about passing this matter was. They could not pass any amendments to the Constitution at this meeting, and this was a matter to come up before the annual meeting. Mr. Hulbert said that this was not a legislative body, but merely a business arrangement. It was always customary to ascertain with certainty whether or not a Club was going to continue another year. Mr. Kennett said that he did not suppose the members of the Cincinnati Board of Directors, who were all prominent business men, would think of saying that they were going to have a nine if they did not mean it; they did not think that they would go to work and hire men, run themselves in debt, &c., if it was not their intention to play next year. He did not sign the agreement from principle, and thought he had a perfect right to retain such right. A resolution was then submitted to the effect that the Cincinnati Club vacated its membership in the League if its representative did not make a formal assent or negative to the agreement prohibiting Sunday games on League grounds and the sale of liquors.

The preliminary caucus meeting of the League Club delegates was held at Rochester, N.Y., last week, and was called to order Oct. 4, with the following representatives of the League Association present, viz.” N. A. Hulbert of Chicago, president; N. E. Young, secretary, E. G. Smith of Buffalo; J. F. Evans of Cleveland; H. T. Root of Providence; A. H. Soden of Boston; W. C. Kennett of Cincinnati; Freeman Brown of Worcester; and C. R. De Freest of Troy. Mr. Bancroft was not sent by the Worcesters, as he was opposed to the five-men rule, and so was Mr. Soden, although the original author of the rule. Mr. Smith of Buffalo and Mr. Kennett of Cincinnati were opposed to the rule. The Buffalo Courier says: “after two days of discussion the League settled down to real work on Wednesday. The Buffalo representative had returned, and Mr. Kennett was on hand with the telegram from his Board of Directors: ‘Stick to your position, accept any amendments but don’t give up the main question.’ Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Kiennett what the news was from Cincinnati? The latter immediately replied that he should not recede from the stand he had taken, although he was ready to accept any compromise. Mr. Hulbert said that the meeting could not go on with their further business until this matter was definitely settled. He wanted to ascertain from Cincinnati whether her club would say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the agreement. If they held off any longer, the club would forfeits its membership in the League. The subject under discussion was now practically a law, as seven delegates had pledged themselves to support it at the annual meeting in December. Mr. Kennett said he was willing to have the sale of liquor restricted to a bar under the grand-stand, and he would give his word that the directors would exert themselves to do away with the custom as fast as the prejudice in its favor could be overcome. To this offer Mr. Hulbert replied that he failed to see how the other delegates could accept any such amendment of the original articles, and did not think that they could stultify themselves, having already given their vote for the first agreement. A resolution was then submitted to the effect that the Cincinnati Club vacated its membership in the League if its representative did not make a formal assent or negative to the agreement prohibiting Sunday games and sale of liquors on League grounds. Seven delegates voted in favor of the resolution. Mr. Kennett styled such legislation as infamous, and he believed that it was nothing more nor less than an attempt to oust his club. Courtesy, however, demanded that they should permit him to telegraph to his Board and obtain a final answer. This privilege was granted, and Mr. Kennett then left the meeting. Before doing so he said to Secretary Young: ‘I want to enter my formal protest against all proceedings that shall be enacted at this meeting.’ With the distasteful element from Cincinnati out, the gathering proceeded to hold a more than ordinarily secret conclave. Each delegate solemnly swore, as were informed, not to disclose the results of their deliberations after a two hours’ session their business was concluded, and the representatives came downstairs. Our representative was enabled to gather an outline of the result of the afternoon’s proceedings. The five-men matter was discussed. The Buffalo representative opposed it vigorously, and made a desperate fight, but he was outnumbered. The other delegates had made up their respective minds, and decided to send their pet policy through flying. All law, courtesy, and everything else were thrown aside to let Worcester, Troy and Cleveland have their best men. Buffalo was most emphatically sat upon, and the six delegates voted to renew the reservation agreement signed at Buffalo in 1879. Among other things learned was the fact that the Boston delegate, who had not been in favor of the plan, was pacified by the agreement of all not to approach Snyder and permit Boston along to sign him. All but Buffalo signed this bond, and the baseball slavery-act once more became a reality. Such cramping of the interests of the players, and designating where and how they shall play, is preposterous. The delegates all left for home without doing anything further with the Cincinnati matter.” New York Clipper October 16, 1880 [per NL minutes 10/4 seven clubs signed an agreement to vote to prohibit Sunday games and liquor sales.]

For some years past a puzzling problem to the League Association has been that involved in the question of how to regulate the salary-list of their professionals so as to make it accord with paying returns at the gate. The yearly struggle to secure the best professional talent has resulted in the increase of salaries from simply remunerative figures up to “fancy prices.” ... Finally a rule was adopted which gave to each League club the power to hold five men of one season’s team to service for a succeeding year at such terms as each club holding them might think fit to offer. The rules was made so as to be mandatory to the extent that the player refusing to abide by it was prohibited from employment in any League Club save the one reserving his services. The arbitrary character of this rule was fully exhibited in the case of George Wright’s engagement with the Providence team in 1880, that player being practically ruled off League fields as a player because he refused to accede to the reservation policy the past season. While it is to a certain extend a necessity with stockholders of clubs to economize as much as possible in the way of ou8tlays for salaries, it is also possible to adopt such a method for controlling salary-lists without resorting to so objectionable a law as the existing five-men rule. The same united action of the clubs required to carry out the five-men law would prove equally effective in the case of a regular limitation of salaries to figures commensurate with the sum of the annual gate-receipt account. Thus it might be easily determined that no club should pay more than $1,200 a season for a pitcher or catcher’s services, nor more than $1,000 a season for those of the in and out fie4lders; but a law which admits of so gross a piece of tyranny as that contemplated by the League in the case of forcing Snyder to play with the Boston Club or no other is one which is a disgrace to the League code.

[reporting the NL meeting of 12/8/1880] ...An increase in the number of penalties, in which forfeiture of membership is concerned, was made, to the extent of including the prohibition of any match games on League grounds on Sunday, or the allowing of any player to participate in any Sunday game during the term of his League service. Also that of prohibiting the sale of beer or spirits on League grounds, or of open betting or pool-selling. Under the revised constitution, any club in the Association found guilty of any violation of either of the above prohibitory rules is liable to immediate expulsion from the League–after due proof of the facts before the Board–on a two-thirds vote of the League championship clubs. New York Clipper December 18, 1880

Rule 45 is amended so as to prohibit any base-runner form having another player of the nine run for him. If he is too lame—from an injury sustained in the game then being played—to run the bases, he must leave the field altogether, and be subject to Rule 37. If he is only fatigued or partially disabled, then he must run the bases as best he may. This amendment was made to put a stop to the call for base-running substitutes which marked so many League contests last season, and the relieve the captains from the onus of refusing to allow such substitute to run. It is no longer optional with captains to consent to a player running a base for a companion, for no such substitute-running is now permitted.

The members of the Association have naturally felt indignant at the course pursued by the Detroit and Boston League Clubs in enticing players to break their written contracts with the Athletic and Cincinnati Clubs, and by way of resenting this action some of the most hot-tempered of them proposed to make the black-listed players of the League eligible for service in Association clubs. This course would not only not trouble the League in the least, but would simply have the effect of cutting off all the profitable games the Association teams would otherwise be likely to have with the League clubs. The only right way to do is to bring the law to bear on the players who broke their contracts,by having them prohibited from playing in League cities of States where the clubs whose players were taken away from them are located. To open the door to all the black-listed players of the League would simply be to offer a premium to insubordination and other evils the American Association clubs desire to get rid of as much as the League clubs do. We are opposed to any cringing whatever on their part to the League, but we also desire to see the American Association placed on record as opposed alike to the engagement of kicker in their ranks as to crooked knaves.

The Board of Directors of the Cincinnati Club at their meeting yesterday passed a resolution to introduce s at the Cincinnati grounds during the rest of the season. These days will be every Tuesday, when the Cincinnati club plays a game. In case of postponement or on weeks when no Tuesday game is played, the Thursday following will be . The idea is to have one day of each week so denominated. Upon all these days ladies will be admitted to the grounds and to the grand stand free, provided they are accompanied by male escort. Gentlemen can bring as many ladies as they please, and will be asked to pay admission for themselves alone. Upon these days smoking will be positively prohibited at any place in the grand stand, and every effort will be made to make it pleasant and agreeable to lady patrons. The Club desires to revive the old-time interest which ladies used to take in the splendid sport. The first one of these days will be next Tuesday, upon the occasion of the first game of the Cincinnatis after their return from the East. And each succeeding Tuesday, except July 4, will also be free to ladies attending. It should be borne in mind, however, that in all cases the ladies must be accompanied by a gentleman escort.

Mr. Maley, who is still the lessee of Oakdale Park, announces the same to rent from this date to July 1 st. the Park is one of the best in the city, now that it has been so greatly improved. To organizations desiring grounds for base ball, and other Athletic sports, apply at... The Philadelphia Item June 4, 1882

Oakdale Park passes into the hands of the Athletic club on July 1, Messrs. Mason, Simmons and Sharsig having leased it for a term of years. A number of improvements will be made at once, including new open seats on each side of the field which will hold 3,000 persons. The beer stand on the ground is to be removed, and the sale of beer and liquor on the ground positively prohibited. The Philadelphia Item June 11, 1882

small turnout of ladies

[Baltimore vs. Cincinnati 6/6/1882] [ladies’ day] The Cincinnatis celebrated their return home form the East yesterday by soundly beating the Baltimores in the presence of a few over sixteen hundred delighted spectators. The day was a beautiful one, and, being the first of the newly-inaugurated Ladies’ Day, the response by the fair sex was good. About forty ladies were present, and the grand stand looked gay. Cincinnati Commercial June 7, 1882

Up til Friday last the Athletic had sold 84,000 tickets this season. Enough money has been taken in to pay the expenses this year, and $5,000 have been deposited in bank towards a nine for next year. After July 4 the management, Messrs. Simmons, Sharsig and Mason, gain control of the lease of the ground. Their first action should be to abolish the sale of beer on the ground. The stand there now is an eyesore and source of much complaint from the respectable element attending the games. The League Prohibits all liquor selling. The American Association should do likewise.

Just now the papers published in League cities are agonizing over the American Association, and holding it up to ball players as something awful and something that they should severely let alone, if they value self-respect and certain salaries. These articles have been called forth by the inroads made on League teams by the agents and managers of American clubs, and by the League rule prohibiting the engagement of players before October 1st. they are forced to stand idly by and see their best players taken away from them by the American clubs, whose swelling treasuries allow them to outbid the League in the secural [sic] of the best playing talent. There are many other reasons outside of salaries that are depleting the League, and among the number are excessive fines, unjust exactions, and a niggardly spirit that controls League management. In the matter of fines the League has gone entirely too far, and has driven several of its best players into the rival organization. Unjust exactions, such as the deduction of fifty cents a day from players while traveling, the purchase of suits, etc., will also stand responsible for driving players from the League. In the matter of the purchase of suits, the present President of the League has a monopoly, and by League legislation every player is forced to purchase from hi, and at prices fifty per cent. higher than could be obtained at other establishments.

In a single word, the spirit of the League clubs towards their players is to treat them like hired men, with no rights that the League need respect.

The American Association was organized to protect both players and managers, and their policy adopted is most liberal. Managers ask of players their best services, and treat them like gentlemen, and not like slaves. There are no fines in the American for trivial causes. There is no reduction in salaries when traveling. There is no monopoly to toady to, managers furnishing themselves the player's suits, and a player's salary represents just so much money, and is not reduced by fines, as in many cases that could be cited from the League, to just one-half the stipulated amount. This policy is attracting to the American the very best players in the country and the fate of the League can be easily told unless they come down from their high horse. Already there is a movement to right many of the wrongs of the League, and whatever justice players may receive in the future they will have the American to thank for.

[report on the special NL meeting] The secretary then read applications for membership from several of the American association clubs. These were all rejected, however, on the ground that the policy of the league has always been to limit the number of clubs to eight, the present number, and the delegates present could see no reason for departing from this policy. Boston Herald September 24, 1882 [N.B. This does not appear in the official minutes of the meeting.]

Cincinnati sets up a dodge to play NL clubs

The patrons of base ball in Cincinnati have been clamorous for games in October between the Cincinnatis and a few of the best League club teams. The Cincinnati Club have not been able to play such games, because their constitution expressly forbids it. But a certain wealthy admirer of the sport, and a well known citizen of Cincinnati, has made these games possible, and they will be played. The Cincinnati players’ contracts run to October 15. This made two weeks’ salary to be paid by the club, during which time the team could not make half of it by playing local or Association clubs. The aforesaid citizen made an offer to assume the payment of these last half month salaries (amounting to nearly $1,000), if the club would turn over the team to him, and release all the players. As this would be a big saving to the club treasury it was agreed to. The team, were consulted and agreed to take their released October 1, and to remain for two weeks in the employ and at the will of said gentleman. Negotiations were then begun by this gentleman’s agent for a series of League Club visits to Cincinnati. The result was that during the first two weeks in October the Cleveland Club will play three games here, the Chicago two and the Providence Club four. One of the requirements in the agreements between these clubs and the management of the Cincinnatis was that the teams be exactly those as are how playing. Cincinnati Commercial September 24, 1882

They will be the Cincinnati Club only in name. This action was found necessary, as all three teams had competed with the Bostons, who have an expelled player among their men, and the association constitution prohibits one of its clubs from meeting another that has in its nine, or has played with one that has a man thus outlawed. Cincinnati Gazette September 25, 1882

The Association should do something to definitely settle the question of the height of a pitcher’s arm–either to fix a penalty to keep it down or allow it, in express words, to go as high as the shoulder but no higher, under a fixed and well-defined penalty. As the League have it, there is no penalty to prohibit a pitcher from throwing over his head, and the higher you allow them to go the more they will encroach upon the privilege. Cincinnati Commercial December 10, 1882

[reporting on the NL meeting] The playing rules were amended to the effect that the pitcher's hand, in delivering the ball, must pass below the shoulder instead of the waist. The Philadelphia Item December 10, 1882

[reporting on the AA meeting] The class 3, rule 23 was changed by leaving out the words, “arm swinging nearly perpendicular by his side,” and the word “waist” was changed to “shoulder,” thereby admitting of any delivery of the ball to the bat below the line of the pitcher's shoulder. The Philadelphia Item December 17, 1882

[reporting on the new AA rules] The convention retained the existing clause relative to foul-bound catches, and this is the essential point of difference between the American and League codes, the former recognizing the foul-bound catch, while the latter admits only of the complete fly-catch game. The experience of the American clubs during the past season, their delegates said in advocating the retention of the foul-bound catch, was that their assemblages favored small-score games, and that any reduction of the facilities for putting out batsmen would have a tendency to increase scores at the cost of fielding. The League argues in favor of prohibiting the catch that it helped the batsman by lessening his chances for outs.

The Northwestern League has joined the League alliance, and all American clubs will be cut off from playing games with them unless the existing prohibitory law of the American Association is repealed at the March meeting.

[reporting on the AA meeting] [A section of the constitution] was adopted, the breaking of which is punishable by expulsion. It forbids any of the nines from playing or presenting in its nine any player who shall have been released from any other professional club from the same city. This little enactment was decided upon to prevent the New York Club from drawing upon either its league or American nine to strengthen the other. In other words, the clubs in that metropolis, it having control of both nines, can not now, if it finds that its league representative is unable to win the championship, transfer players from that body to the American nine, provided it stands some show of securing the pennant, and thus add to its playing power.