Cricket CRITICS OF UMPIRES

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29205, 16 May 1960, Page 12

Cricket CRITICS OF UMPIRES

Auckland Claims “Bad Breaks”

"The Press" Special Service AUCKLAND, May 14. The reasons why Auckland lost the Plunket Shield, according to Mr J. A. Forsman, its manager, were “lack of team spirit, bad wickets and conditions and bad breaks in umpiring.” All combined to make a "most distressing season,” he said on Thursday evening. Mr Forsman managed the Auckland side when it won the shield in the 1958-59 season and many are of the opinion that the shield was won largely because of his energy and enthusiasm. He is now relinquishing the post because of the urgency of other cricket responsibilities during the shield period. “Last season," said Mr Forsman, our attack was directed to a standard plan. We studied wickets and our opposition, with every member of the team having a say and yet fully behind the captain. This year the direction of the side was less effective. "This year Auckland had cause to be dissatisfied with the umpiring, particularly In Christchurch. It seems that Auckland, on the last three occasions at Lancaster Park, has suffered similarly. This time it was Taylor out to a bump ball, Norman 'caught - off his boot, Waddington ‘l.b.w.’ to a ball that touched neither bat nor pad. “There seemed to be no chance of getting l.b.w. decisions against M. E. Chapple, even to shooting balls. Our men went in suspicious of the umpires—it was an unnerving mental hazard.

“I am at a loss to understand why so many bad decisions were given. I can only assume that the umpires were too much in the game—a very tense and exciting game.” Mr Forsman also urged strongly that a move be made towards faster wickets. "We have been told before by visiting players to get faster wickets," he said. "In Auckland. Hamilton and Dunedin wickets are decidedly too slow. In Christchurch they are frightful, dusting after almost the second over in Plunket Shield and Brabin Cup matches. “From my observations in the south there seemed to be no move to prepare faster wickets and there seems to be no point in us continually asking for advice and not using it." Mr Forsman concluded that, pitches and umpires apart, Christchurch made ideal provision for cricket.

“I have grown to feel that Christchurch is really the home of cricket,” he said. ‘The way it is fostered, the way it is played and revered—it is . a totally different game, pure cricket. I am satisfied that the New Zealand Council is in the right place."

Mr Forsman’s remarks on umpiring were referred to the president of the Canterbury Cricket Umpires' Association (Mr P. M. Kerr) for comment. "It appears that the Auckland manager is upset at his team's loss in Christchurch," said Mr Kerr. "He has followed a trend which has been somewhat noticable in recent years of blaming the umpires when decisions have gone against his teams.

"Mr Forsman’s remarks can only be interpreted to mean that the umpires in the Plunket Shield match between Auckland and Canterbury at Christchurch were not only incompetent but also dishonest,” said Mr Kerr. "The lot of an umpire is not an easy one, and the only satisfaction which he can get out of a match is to feel that he has been competent and honest, and the umpires in the match concerned certainly had this feeling," he said.