CANTERBURY CRICKET ASSOCIATION.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11546, 31 March 1903, Page 5

CANTERBURY CRICKET ASSOCIATION.

Tlie Committee of the Canterbury Cricket Association met last aiight, when Mr A. K. G. Rhodes presided. The question before the Committee was the appeal of the Lancaster Park uga.inst the decision of the C'uinpetitiuHx , Committee, in disqualifying the Lancaster Park junior team for match the United Junior*, on tlie , ■ground of the unfair inclusion of Mr Wells, a «t>nior player. -Mr Caygill, the Chairman of tlw Competition Committee, detailed the position <if affairs. The Competition Cominitt&e, Mr Cuvgill stated, were of opinion that Mr Welfe was put down from the senior position to the junior to win the tournament. In reply to Mr Ridley, Mr CoygiU said the Competition Committee were unanimous in disqualifying Mr Wells. Beyond this all the members of the Competition Committee played cricket, and had played with Mr Wells , , and they were of opinion that Mr Wells was a senior cricketer. Mr Ridley moved—"That the disqualification bo removed on the following grounds —(1) 'Hint no warning was given to the club that disqualification would follow if Wells was played. (2) That no club or eleven made "any complaint whatever though Wells's name was advertised as usual, and that Welle really was not entitled to be elapsed as a senior. Mr Ridley urged that there could be no disqualification unleee there was unfairness. Ho maintained that there waa not the slightest ground of unfairness against the club in connection with the case under discussion. Hon. E. C. J. Stevens did not agree with Mr Ridley's motion, because it dealt with the qualification* of individual players. Uuti listening to Mr Caygill attentively, he came to the conclusion that tlie rules did not provide that the committee should take the initiative. The whole question was whether the committee should take the initiative, there being no dispute and no report to them. He himself felt that under the rules they had no right to do so. After further disou-ssion the Hon. Mr Stevens moved, as an amendment—"That in tlie opinion of the Committee, the rules do not give the Competitions Committee an initiative in cases like the one under consideration,'" the amendment being carried by 5 to 4. ' Mr C. W. Garrard said he would tender his resignation as a member of the Competitions Committee. Mr Williams pointed out that he had voted oa the question of the definition, of a rule, and notion the question of the conduct of the Competition Committee. On the motion of Mr Ridley, it was reyolved that the action of ths Competition Committee was in the best interests of cricket. After s-ome discussion on the eubject of the improvement of cricket. Mr Ridley moved—"That the secretary call a meeting of delegates at an early date after the Easter holidays, to consider the qik-stiwi of tlie improvement of crickets ' The resolution was agreed to. Mr Garrard withdrew his resignation, which he pointed out bad been given in under a misapprehension. Thie wm all the biwines*.