Clipping:Arguing over the ball to use: Difference between revisions

From Protoball
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Hershberger Clippings Import)
 
No edit summary
 
Line 3: Line 3:
|Date=6/27/1869
|Date=6/27/1869
|Title=arguing over the ball to use
|Title=arguing over the ball to use
|Text=<p>[Cincinnati vs. Athletic 6/21/1869] Over a quarter of an hour’s time was wasted in a dispute as tow hat ball should be played with, the Athletics insisting that a lively elastic Ross ball should be used, whilst the Cincinnatis claimed that as they were the challenging party, they had the right o furnish the ball, and therefore proposed to use a ball made expressly for them, of a non-elastic nature, by which they hoped to equalize any advantage that the Athletics might possess over them in batting.  The dispute was finally decided by the Cincinnatis agreeing to play with the ball furnished by the Athletics, as it always has been the custom for the club on whose ground a match is played to furnish the ball.</p>
|Text=<p>[Cincinnati vs. Athletic 6/21/1869] Over a quarter of an hour’s time was wasted in a dispute as to what ball should be played with, the Athletics insisting that a lively elastic Ross ball should be used, whilst the Cincinnatis claimed that as they were the challenging party, they had the right o furnish the ball, and therefore proposed to use a ball made expressly for them, of a non-elastic nature, by which they hoped to equalize any advantage that the Athletics might possess over them in batting.  The dispute was finally decided by the Cincinnatis agreeing to play with the ball furnished by the Athletics, as it always has been the custom for the club on whose ground a match is played to furnish the ball.</p>
|Source=Philadelphia Sunday Mercury
|Source=Philadelphia Sunday Mercury
|Submitted by=Richard Hershberger
|Submitted by=Richard Hershberger
|Origin=Initial Hershberger Clippings
|Origin=Initial Hershberger Clippings
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 08:23, 8 December 2021

19C Clippings
Scroll.png


Add a Clipping
Date Sunday, June 27, 1869
Text

[Cincinnati vs. Athletic 6/21/1869] Over a quarter of an hour’s time was wasted in a dispute as to what ball should be played with, the Athletics insisting that a lively elastic Ross ball should be used, whilst the Cincinnatis claimed that as they were the challenging party, they had the right o furnish the ball, and therefore proposed to use a ball made expressly for them, of a non-elastic nature, by which they hoped to equalize any advantage that the Athletics might possess over them in batting. The dispute was finally decided by the Cincinnatis agreeing to play with the ball furnished by the Athletics, as it always has been the custom for the club on whose ground a match is played to furnish the ball.

Source Philadelphia Sunday Mercury
Comment Edit with form to add a comment
Query Edit with form to add a query
Submitted by Richard Hershberger
Origin Initial Hershberger Clippings

Comments

<comments voting="Plus" />