CRICKET TACTICS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 79, 15 January 1936, Page 3

CRICKET TACTICS

INCIDENT AT TEST MATCH. ENGLISH PRESSMAN'S VIEW. (United Press Association—Copyright.) LONDON, Jan. 13. The sports editor of the "Daily Mail" declares: "If Human's bowling of six wides and no-balls (in the concluding stages of the test match M.C.C. v. New Zealand) in order to get a new ball is correctly reported, such action here would produce a chorus of indignation. The writer hopes the M.C.C. has noted the incident. FURTHER PRESS COMMENT. (Received This Day, 10.5 a.m.) LONDON, January 14. Apropos of Human's bowlin, the "Telegraph's" sports gossip writer says: "Why stop at wides? Why not deliberate no-balls or an American pitcher to incapacitate the batsman? Terrific curvers may sound fantastic, but once we depart from the rules and traditions of the game it is impossible to see where the changes will stop." RETICENCE OF M.C.C. LEADER. REFUSAL TO DISCUSS MATTER. CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 14. No explanation of the extraordinary over bowled by Human, acting-captain of the M.C.C. team on the last day of the match against New Zealand at Dunedin, was forthcoming when the touring team passed through Christchurch this evening, on its way to Wellington for the second test. Both Holmes (captain) and Human declined to discuss the matter with a reporter who sought an interview. HWmes stated that he had nothing to say and Human said that only Holmes was allowed to speak for the team. Explanation, Rejected 1 . A message from Dunedin stating that Human had adopted this method of indicating he agreed with the Sew Zealand batsmen's appeal against the light, is discredited by those followers of the game who know the rules of cricket. The rules prescribe quite definitely, that if the two captains agree that the light'is unfit to play T , then play may cease at once without reference to the umpires. Only in the case of the captains disagreeing, which usually, happens, is an appeal made to the umpires. On the other hand, it is argued in support of Human that his action in throwing away runs to get a new ball in an endeavour to end the game and secure a win, was no more unsportsmanlike than the much more frequent action of a defending side in stonewalling and refusing opportunities to make runs in order to prolong the game and secure a draw. The Incident Described. Reporting the incident which has attracted such wide attention, the "Otago Daily Times" said: Shortly after the umpires had decided at 5.30 p.m. that play should be resumed the match came to an almost farcical ending. Some surprise was caused when Human, acting as captain of the M.C.C. side in the absence of Holmes, who had a bruised thumb, took the ball and, though he is a slow bowler, sent down two deliveries on the leg side at more than medium pace. Griffith, the wicket-keeper, apparently unaware of his leader's intentions, stopped them both. But, when the third ball went for four wides, Human's intentions became apparent. He obviously wanted to give away a sufficient number of runs to enable him to claim the new ball when 200 went up. "Wide" was signalled twice during the over, the last six balls of which were deliberately bowled to the boundary on the leg side. Thus, the over yielded 24 extras. Human immediately claimed the new ball, which he gave to Baxter. After this bowler had sent dowu only one ball, however, the advantage which had been gained was lost, for another appeal was made against the light, and the umpires upheld it, drawing stumps about 20 minutes before the time when play normally would have been concluded.