AFTER THE TESTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 74, 29 March 1933, Page 8

AFTER THE TESTS.

"BODY-LINE" DISPUTE.

DENUNCIATION OF TACTICS.

FAMOUS ENGLISH BOWLER,

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, March 24.

The English team has left us, and one | regrets that even after the tourists had [ practically completed their task, there [ should be another "incident" to record. Larwood, on his journey to Perth to pick up his steamer, wa"s hooted and insulted by some hoodlums at one of the wayside stations, and he has declared that lie is so disgusted with Australia that he will never return to play in Test matches here. It is most unfortunate that the whole country should be thus discredited bv a few larrikins, and it is a pity that Larwood has taken the matter so seriously. But, of course, like almost all. the trouble we have had this' season, it grew out of "body-bowling," and for this Larwood was not principally responsible.

It must not be forgotten that Larwood, like every other member of a team, must obey his captain, and he certainly would not have bowled short "bumpers" and "body-line" stuff if he had not been instructed to do so.

Frank Foster's Views. On this point I may quote some passages from an interview with Frank Foster radioed last week from London to an Australian paper. According to this statement—which I am assuming to be authentic and accurate—Foster condemns "body-line" bowling most emphatically; and I may remind those interested in cricket literature that in his fascinating book of cricket memories he explains that, while he made a great success of "leg-theory," he never sent down "body-line" stuff. In this interview he says: "I never deliberately sent the ball at a batsman's head or body; I fcrird only for good length 'balls." He

insists that "body-line" bowling must be abolished—if necessary, by giving the umpire power to call "no-ball."

On this last there is, of course, room for difference of opinion. But there can be no doubt about Foster's views on this much-debated question. He ,even goes so far as to express regret "that England has won the Ashes by adopting such dubious methods of attack. He declares that "Jardine is welcome to the Ashes at the price England paid for them"; he says that he will tell Jardine that he is "ashamed of England's win" when he meets the English captain on his return; and he congratulates Woodfull on his fine sportsmanship in refusing to retaliate.

J Preparation Before Tour. 'But perhaps the most significant passage in the interview is Foster's disclosure of the careful preparation of the battery attack" upon Australia's batsmen before the tour began. "Before Jardine left England," says Foster, "he came frequently to my flat in the St. James', secured from me my leg-theorv placmgs. I had no hint that these would •be used for body-line bowling, and I would like all my old friends in Australian cricket to know that I am sorry that my experience and my advice were put to such unworthy uses." No man could put the case against "body-line" bowling more strongly than this, and as Foster made up, with Barnes (in Clem Hill's opinion) the most formidable bowling combination that Australia ever had to face, no doubt his criticism will carry weight at Home.

Unfortunately the outlook in regard to this very serious question is neither clear nor encouraging. Arthur Mailey who has generally .contended that the bowler has a right to employ such methods of attack if others fail, is inclined to think that after the Board of Control's protest wo had better "leave it to the M.C.C." But ho admitted that if the M.C.C. supports Jardine, it is doubtful if an Australian team will be sent Home in 1934.

In County Cricket. A week ago it was cabled from Home that A. W. Carr (who captains Notts and has captained England) intends that Larwood and Voce shall bowl for their county this, season just as they bowled in Australia. He admits that' there is danger to the batsman, but he adds that he has "no moral qualms" and that there is nothing in the rules against it. But

as he slso remarks that lie is "sure thai I Larwood did not deliberately bowl at tis | ibatsman," it would seem that his know« ! ledge of body-bowling is still rather in--1 adequate. As a matter of fact several members, of the English team ara credited with having said that Larwood and Voce have never bowled "body-line* stuff at Home as they bowled it here. But opinions adverse to "body-line" have been expressed so strongly and by such influential authorities at Home that it is doubtful if Jardine and Carr will get their way. and the cabled report from the "Daily Mirror" to the effect that the first-class counties are taking concerted action against body-line bowling is certainly encouraging to its opponents here.

Change in lbw Rule Proposed. I Meantime those here who regard "body-line" as a real menace to cricketnot so much a physical danger to tho man as destructive of the finest features of the- game—are busying themselves with suggestions for aiding the bowler without giving him his present excuse for "assault and battery." Bradman, (whose articles on cricket are always marked by sound common sense, has ! pointed out that "body-line" bowling objectionable' as it is, is, after all, only the bowler's protest against the impregnability of the batsman's position, white he is allowed to "pack up" and stop breaking halls with his pads. Bradman therefore suggests that if the "lbw" rule were modified so that a batsman may be "out" to any ball which, in the opinion of the umpire, would have hit the wicket if the pad had not been in_ the way, the excuse for "body-bowlin D would largely disappear.