BOWLING.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 170, 19 July 1924, Page 4 (Supplement)

BOWLING.

SINGLES UMPIRING. EEMAEKABLE INCIDENT IN SYDNEY. (By TBUNDLEK.) To anyone who has taken any interest in the unsatisfactory position in regard to umpiring at singles, there will be a peculiar atisfaction in the first class quarrel that has arisen in Sydney, for it has all come about through the absence of specific rures on duties and powers of umpires and markers. The merits of the case are of minor importance to the principle involved, but as the incidents in dispute occurred during the final of the New South Wales championship three months ago, and the question was only settled last week, it can readily be imagined what feeling has been caused amongst those who have been supporting the opposing competitors. The umpire or marker (none of the newspaper accounts bas made it plain in which capacity Mr. Harriscm was acting), gave the match to Craig, but Brown claimed it on two contentions, firstly, that he had the shot on the fourth head, wiiich was so clearly his that he picked up the jack, whereupon Craig protested, and the head was replayed, and secondly, because the umpire made a mistake in the last head as to which bowl of Brown's was the toucher. The resulting dispute has been all the hotter because Brown is the South Coast champion, from the Woonona Club, whereas Craig is secretary of the Marrickvillo Club. There seems to be still some doubt as to which bowl was the toucher in the last head, but there is no question of fact in regard to the fourth head, so that the whole thing has hinged on the interpretation of the rules, and strong exception was taken to an attempt to work up an agitation of town versus country, on the grounds that the "country players did not get a fair show when they came to the city." Mr. James Wall, the New South Wales president, soon disposed of that idea, and narrowed the discussion down to the limits of the game itself. What Happened ire Auckland. The local interest in this unusual dispute arises from the fact that in all our tournaments we have all the elements of a similar quarrel, with the risk of resulting bitterness that would take years to assuage. Take the last champion of champions tournament. We had umpires who were most reluctant to assert their authority, and markers who were apparently lacking in all knowledge of their supposed duties. The word "supposed" is used advisedly, for there is not a single rule bearing on the question, and all the usual procedure has simply developed in the light of experience. But the climax was reached in the finals at Epsom, where the umpires degenerated into markers, and there were no umpires at all. Furthermore, one of those markers took his instructions from the competitors, instead of insisting on the competitors taking their instructions from him. And not a word has been said about it, probably because in each case the win was by a fairly liberal margin. But suppose there had been a close match, as there very often is in a semi-final, if not in a final. We would probably be Etill fighting the

game over again, all for want of the i specific duties of umpire and marker, entirely different positions, being defined by exact rules. A lot of people have a great objection to rules, but it is far better to have a few extra than to have such a bitter discussion as our friends in Sydney have suffered, prolonged over three months. One of the chief factors in maintaining the harmony that is such a prominent feature I in bowls is the existence of rules to provide for every possible contingency, • instead of leaving a loophole for making ■ a quarrel out of it. That loophole exist 3in singles matches. T/te Rule in England. , The English and Scottish Bowling Associations are ahead of us on this ' point, for they have a rule on the matter, j which reads, inter alia, "The marker] may answer queries as to position of I bowls and their distance from the jack, j but shall not give directions to, consult with, nor assist either player as to the 1 p1.13'." The rest of their rule is fairly! ' complete, but it does not provide for j every contingency, and when the Domin-'l ion Council takes up this matter, as it ■ no doubt will, after the deplorable i example in Sydney, the whole thing 1 might just as well be settled, in the light of all the regrettable incidents that ' have occurred, including one of the semi- ' ' finals at the Dominion championship in , Auckland last year. | : W/Vat Happened in Sydney. The Xew South Wales Bowling Associa-. ' tion finally settled toe matter by dis- j i missing Brown's appeal, and upheld , ' the decision of the pennant committee, I which had declared Craig the winner. I But it took a long time to reach that, settlement. slr. B.aclcstone, secretary j of the N.5.W.8.A., set the discussiongoing by stating tbat the invariable practice is that the umpire shall declare who is the shot, with the reservation that the opposing player may ask for a measure. "Had tha, course been followed, there would have been no trouble over the fourth head." That is the usual j course followed in Auckland, but it is 11 not at all universal. The umpire in j Sydney, however, took up an attitude I that will strike New Zealand players as ; most peculiar: "If Mr. Blackstone stated j i that it is the invariable practice for the j ] umpire to decide who is shot, then thatj, gentleman has something to learn. The 1 umpire, so called, is really only a scorer, I i and a convenience for the players, to put i 1 tho kitty straight, and to tell them " what they want to know. He has no i right to interfere with an end, or express ) any opinion without being asked. When 1 the players arrive at the end they give i or take, a3 the case may be, and, if ' unable to agree, ask the umpire to mea- I sure. That is where the umpire's duties ' begin and where they end." Of course |' the last statement is open to serious . question, for, in the entire absence of > rules. Mr. Harrison, the umpire, has no more right to specify the duties of a marker in singles than has Mr. Blackstone, the secretary. On the face of it, the attitude of the secretary is the cor- ' rect one, that is, that with no rules • exising they should be guided by cus- ' torn, and if the umpire had disputed the ' opinion of the secretary as to what the \ custom is, he would have been on sounder ; ground than by dogmatically making the rule to suit the case. During the f Easter carnival at Perth, the matter was taken up by the supreme bowling autho- i rity in the Commonwealth, the Austra- 1 lia/i Bowling Council, and they soon ] made mincemeat of the umpire's attitude. <

The conference unan;-. the opinion that |ng upon the players &-«> mg who was shot a „„ _ Us °f& umpfres should take full dec Sl game, and declare Who 8. measuring, etc. uv as «liot,i' Victoria Bowling A« si to bring the Y.ctona mto coirfonX hitherto observed in iSS X to say, there has so }„ C" H*_ .on of making a rule >»o5 the matter was aga._ /'**< lengthy discussion it I ttn *«i? N.S.W.BA., feeling that the game Tj& S I over again, the me-.i_,„ n ' d >fi I attitude that on quest ?,f- *°* V. must support the would again undertake speaker said:— "N 0 ™ c Joh - A., unless the umpire's S "** Did they ever nlVofe when an umpire declared a f ', * cricket in the ease of iZiH t appropriately these I Mr. Wiseheart, and pointed out thatatthe7^ gllit i at Perth, right under supreme authority, a prot( , l M of; lar circumstances wa 3 n S,lf*'* game ordered to be ni..,*' H ; the meeting declined fe !?". course. The executive w as J™* I to hold on inquiry, and If I>i and the mail this week !?,,„ that the decision o.! t f* Si upheld, and Craig ~ champion of Xew South wll3l general opinion in Sydney ufi i estimate from the divergentif** 1 strong advocates for the tt^' 1 ! it would appear that sftS« umpire was wrong his dee__w£ 1 accepted as final l2*Sfll pointed lesson for New Zealand! *'1