GIRLS' ASSOCIATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 33, 8 February 1929, Page 14

GIRLS' ASSOCIATION.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR TO-MORROW. Matches will be played under the control of the Auckland Girls' Cricket Association at the Remuera ground at 2 30 to-morrow as follows :—Hockey Association V. Technical Old Girls, No. 1 wicket • Grammar Old Girls v. Y.W.C.A., No 2 The teams are as follows:— Grammar Old Girls.—G. Gebbie, I. McConkey, K. Stewart, M. Simpson, D Mortensen G. Allan, C. Sbarpe, H Davies M. Granville-Jones, W. Bigelow. „ Hockey Association.—R. Allison E Ushaw, Z Twining, L. Blakey, M. Innes. h! T r»™ H - JW 11 *;. M \ Hutton-Whitelaw, J. Camphu, T. Camplin, M. Weeks THE SHIELD MATCH. MR. SNEDDEN REPLIES Mr X. C. Snedden writes: — "Mr. S. H. Ferguson's explanation of his attack on the umpires and our veteran Wicket-keeper Rowntree does little to remove the unpleasant impression it created, that his desire to secure a change in the method of appointing umpires for Plunket Shield matches was not the sole motive of his letter. If, as he asserts again that it was, then he has a curious method of expressing his thoughts. He was, to say the least, unfortunate in his choice of word?. Ho admit? that his statements regarding Kowntree did not mean what they conveyed and he has apologised to the player named. It is to be hoped that he did not mean all his other statements. "If he desires your readers to place on his statements constructions that they do not convey, then 'his reputation of being outspoke))' will get him into more ] trouble. Apparently other opinions of j his criticisms agree with mine, otherwise why did the Wellington Cricket Associaton express regret that the letter had been written? Why did Mr. Dan McKenzie, a prominent member of the Wellington Umpires' Association, hasten to dissociate his association from the remarks and express regret? Why have other prominent members of the Wellington Cricket Association and Wellington Umpires' Association, and many other impartial enthusiasts, expressed their disgust at Mr. Ferguson's action? Mr. Ferguson's reply is merely an attempt to justify his methods, which have met with universal disapproval. It throws no fresh light on his original statements, nor does it excuse the:*)."