"BODY-LINE."

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 181, 3 August 1933, Page 11

"BODY-LINE."

THE DEADLOCK. j j NO LEAD IN AUSTRALIA, j i 'I CONTROL BOARD'S SILENCE. (From <Jur Own Correspondent.) . ..." SYDNEY, July 25. Twice within the past fortnight the Australian Board of Control has had a chance to take the general public into its confidence and to secure their support for the policy that it proposes to adopt toward "body-line." Biit no! —it still maintains its attitude of impreg- [ nable and speechless dignity and simply refuses to enlighten our justifiable curiosity. In the extracts from Jardine's book published here by the "Daily Telegraph," the English captain definitely asserts that he offered the Board of Control a ciiance of discussing the whole question of "body-line" at a conference, but that nothing came of it. This is obviously a question of considerable importance; for if such an offer were made and ignored, the board by declining' the suggestion, and above all by omitting to make the fact public, put itself definitely in the wrong. Of course, it does not affect the legitimacy of "body-line" one way or tli© other; but if Jardine's statement is to be accepted unconditionally, the board perpetrated a bad tactical blunder at the outset of the controversy. But the board prefers to maintain its Olympian aloofness and has nothing to say. A few days later when Mr. Bruce at the M.C.C. dinner suggested that the whole question ought to be formally discussed at a conference at which delegates from Australia could put their version of the facts before the rulers of English cricket, it was expected here that the board would at least condescend to say whether it approved of that idea in general terms. But once again the board has no official information to give either to the newspapers or the much-exasperated cricketJovers of Australia. Of course this project of a delegation has been discussed at great length here during the past three months, and Dr. Eric Barbour recently made a strong appeal in favour of such a coilrse, as the only practicable way of clearing up the trouble. What the board in its wisdom may yet decide no one can safely predict, but it must be understood that not all those who object to the board's reticence are necessarily in favour of this plan. It is true that the M.C.C. authorities have had no opportunity to see for themselves what body-line as practised by Larwood and Jardine in Australia actually was, and Larwood's unfortunate inability to bowl at present makes the position even more difficult in this, respect. But it must also be remembered that the M.C.C. made up its mind about the matter without waitiifg for evidence, and declared the case "chose jugee on

the general ground that the charge ot "unsportsmanlike" metflods against an English captain or in an English team is "unthinkable." One may therefore be forgiven for wondering whether the M.C.C. wants to be enlightened now, and this doubt is strengthened by the manner in which some of the leading English newspapers have received this proposal. In some quarters it had been suggested that if Australia sent Woodfull, Noble and Richardson Home to present oUr case personally to the M.C.C. the trouble might be got over somehow. But certain English critics have objected to the in-' elusion of Woodfull,' on the ground that he has committed himself so completely to the "anti-body-line" view of the case! Think of it! The M.C.C. and the British public have been allowed to make up tlieir minds about this matter on the purely "ex parte" statements of Jardine and Larwood, and now Woodfull ought not to be called on the other side because he is "prejudiced!" But the strong antiAustralian element at Home is prepared to go even further It has been suggested that it would be "polite" to send Mailey Home as one of the delegates—, and why 1 Because Mailey is one of the very few leading" Australian cricketers ( •Who has anything to say in favour of "body-line," his argument being that the bowlers having been so lonff mishandled by the bats, are justified in using any method not positively forbidden by the rules to get ryl of them. Therefore Mailey's book has been received very cordially at Home and it was quoted with enthusiastic approval by Jardine at the M.C.C. dinner. And all this means that if the 'Australian delegation is to be received amicably at Homo it ought to exclude the chief witness against "body-line" and it ought to include! the only prominent Australian cricketer whose testimony is likely to be of the least possible service to _ Larwood and Jardine. If the delegation is to be engineered in this way, one may well doubt whether any good is likely to come out of it. But there are even stronger reasons than this to be urged against the proposal. This week Judge Moule, of Victoria, who played for Australia in the Testa some forty years ago, lias pointed out that it Would be quite futile to send Home any sort pf delegation without a very clear idea of the Board of Control wants, and how its object is to be attained. The vague notion that in some way the position would be clarified if Woodfull and Noble, for example, submitted their views on ''bodyline" to the M.C.C. does not really lead us far toward finality. For, as Judge Moule has indicated, the M.C.C. cannot eyen discuss the question on our lines without practically rescinding its previous resolution testifying to its supreme confidence in the sportsmanship of Jardine and his men; and any ban that it might pronounce against "bodyline" for- the future would be construed retrospectively as a reflection upon Jardine and the methods by which he won the Ashes. Of course, there is a way out of all this—at least, I venture to think so. But there is nothing to be gained by imagining that the solution of the problem is easy. And the feeling is gaining ground here that the Board of Control ought to check at once the easygoing confidence of the M.C.C. in regard to the proposed 1934 tour. For it is felt that *if the Australians commit tliem- , selves to this tour without securing I some sort of satisfaction from the • M.C.C. they will deserve all the liumiliai tions that they have already endured, s and even more and worse in the future.