WIPING OF BALL

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26026, 1 February 1950, Page 2

WIPING OF BALL

CRICKET

UMPIRES’ VIEW OF

STRICT ADHERENCE PROPOSED

“Certain practices carried out by players do not meet with the approval of the Canterbury Umpires’ Association, and these will not be countenanced in future by any umpires acting under our jurisdicJ tion,” said a unanimous resolution of the association which was placed before the management committee of the Canterbury Cricket Association last evening. “These practices are: (a) Rubbing the ball with a handkerchief or cloth in dry weather; (b) rubbing the ball in dirt to remove shine when the ground is dry; (c) rubbing the ball with any part of a player’s head-gear; (d) rubbing the ball on any part of the clothing on which perspiration is present. “We hope that until or unless a contrary ruling is obtained from the M.C.C., teams playing under the jurisdiction of the Canterbury Cricket Association, or controlled by umpires appointed from our association, will be informed that the strict letter and spirit of law 46, 4 (111), will be enforced," said a letter from the secretary (Mr H. W. Gourlay). The letter said that the umpires’ only guide in interpretation was the book of Laws of Cricket. “In connexion with the wiping of the ball we have only Law 46, Note 4 (111), as a guide. It states that •a bowler may dry the ball when wet on a towel or with sawdust.’ It is therefore the considered opinion of the Canterbury Umpires’ Association that any other practices are unfair.” Cricket Council’s View

“The opinion of the management committee of the New« Zealand Cricket Council is that the mere .fact of polishing the ball by use of a handkerchief should not of itself be considered unfair play or contrary to the spirit of the game,” said a letter from Mr E. E. Luttrell, secretary of the New Zealand Cricket Council. “This opinion is given as a result of our 1949 team’s experience during its tour of Great Britain, when no exception to this policy was taken by umpires. The committee feels that umpires always have the right to inspect any article used to preserve the shine on the ball, and will no doubt exercise their judgment in the matter. Obviously the use of artificial polishes or xyax Is not contemplated by the law, but we see no difference between the use of a handkerchief or a rag, which is always open to the inspection of the umpires.”

Council Criticised

When the chairman (Mr R. C. Saunders) asked whether the Umpires’ Association would take notice of the Cricket Council’s opinion, Mr W. W. Dunkley, representative of the Umpires’ Association on the association, said: “I don’t think so. If we had had this letter at our last meeting we might have, but we haven't received satisfaction from the Cricekt Council or the association about certain points we have raised in the past.” Mr Dunkley said the question had been raised a few years ago, and when the New Zealand Cricket Council was asked for a ruling its reply had been non-com-mittal and had not amounted to an interpretation. He said that various teams had raised the question, and umpires had been treated rather harshly. Mr Dunkley said there had been a stoppage in the Wellington game when a E layer had been spoken to by an umpire, mpires were sole judges of fair and unfair play and, if they could not gain satisfaction, they could take the matter further, the M.C.C. being the final arbiter on laws.

“I take it umpires should know the rules of cricket better than some executives,” he added. If there was not some definite ruling he said he foresaw that there might be some trouble when the Australians came in March, as the visitors were very particular about fair and unfair play, • It was decided to send the Cricket Council’s letter to the Umpires’ Association, and the umpires’ letter to the Cricket Council.

“I doubt whether we should leave it there,” said Mr E. R. Cay gill. “It might lead to a petty squabble. Steps are being taken to obtain a ruling from the M.C.C., and I would not like to see an incident in the meantime. I would like umpires to hold their hand.”

It was then decided to ask the Umpires’ Association to refrain from applying its interpretation in the meantime.