THE DACRE INCIDENT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLIV, Issue 10066, 12 March 1924, Page 2

THE DACRE INCIDENT

STATEMENT BY UMPIRE.

CHRISTCHURCH, This Day

The failure of the New Zealand team, and incidents of the match (the second test) with the visiting New South Wales team, have given much material for discussion in local cricket circles (says the Wellington “Post.”) The main topic is the Dacre incident. On the umpire's decision against that batsman there is a difference of opinion, but, while some people hold the view that the umpire was correct in ruling that Dacre was run out, the consensus of opinion seems to be that the batsman had regained the crease before the 1 wicket-keeper, keen at his job, had gone through the necessary Erocedure for a “run out” decision. •acre himself says that in regaining the crease he had a foot to spare. Most o<f the ’ visitors, too, have indicated that, in their opinion, Dacre was unlucky to be given “out,” but one of their number, Oldfield, who was fielding near the umpire near the batsman’s end, considers that the decision was a correct one.

The umpire (Mr D. McKenzie), when asked to give his views about'the matter, made the following statement: “In my opinion the bails were off before Dacre had regained his crease. While the demonstration was going on, Oldfield, who was fielding near to the position in which I was standing at square-leg, said to me: ‘ Don’t you you worry; the man is out.’ There was some suggestion then that Dacre should be recalled, but Oldfield made a remark to the effect that that should not be done, as there was no question about the man being out. I am convinced in my own mind that the bails were off before Dacre had his bat on the ground. “I was, and am, sorry fof Dacre, and would have liked to see him carry on. 'But an umpire is chosen to decide points so that the rules of cricket are adhered to, and I can say that my decision was given honestly. No man is infallible. Every man is liable to make a mistake. But I honestly do not think I made a mistake, though I regret very much that a section of the spectators told me in very plain words that they disagreed with my decision.

“Knowing what an attractive batsman Dacre is, what he had done in the first Test .match, and realising how badly a stand was required at the time to stop the rot, I would have more than been pleased if he could have continued. But in my honest opinion he was out, and I said so. Would any fair-minded man,i who has the interest of any sport at heart, think much of a man if he did otherwise?’’ Visiting Manager’s View,

Brief reference to the action of a section of the. spectators when Dacre was given out was made by Mr Cochrane, m&nager of the visiting team. I very much regret the demonstration against the umpire,” he said. “Whether he was right or wrong the demonstration was unwarranted, and more particularly as the umpire is known as a man of unimpeachable character. After all, the umpire is there for the partidular purpose of umpiring, and nobody should lie in a better position to judge. Personally, I think the man was out. I was only a spectator, but whether my opinion is of any value I do not know.”