HUMAN'S OVER.
NO NEW BALL ASKEDi FOR. STATEMENT BY THE UMPIRES. (United Press Association—Copyright.) DUNEDIN, This Day. If the explanation of Human's freak over as a* sporting gesture is discredited the affair becomes more puzzling than ever, because the fact is officially vouched for by the umpires that a new ball was not called for. MORE COMMENT BY THE "MAIL." THE EXPLANATION CRITICISED. (Received This Day, 1 p.m.) > LONDON, January 14. The "Daily Mail," again criticising Human, says that his explanation that the wides and no-balls were a sporting gesture indicating the Englishmen's agreement with an appeal against the light does not appear to make the case better. What right has a bowler to show in the field disagreement with the umpires?
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG19360115.2.67
Bibliographic details
Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 79, 15 January 1936, Page 6
Word Count
122HUMAN'S OVER. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 79, 15 January 1936, Page 6
Using This Item
Ashburton Guardian Ltd is the copyright owner for the Ashburton Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Ashburton Guardian Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.