Officials Debate Whether No-Ball Is A Ball

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30269, 23 October 1963, Page 19

Officials Debate Whether No-Ball Is A Ball

The method of calculating bonus points in matches under the jurisdiction of the Canterbury Cricket Association was discussed at a meeting of the association's management committee last evening. The chairman of the competitions committee, Mr G. P. Dryden, said that not everyone knew that a no-ball was counted when the points were being calculated.

The ruling provides that i the runs scored be divided byi the total balls bowled and I multiplied bj six. said Mr I Dryden. “As far as I am | concerned, a no ball is a ‘ bail bowled.”

The representative of the umpires’ association. Mr L. C Johnson, agreed with Mr Dryden and wanted the present system continued. He agreed that no balls were not counted as part of the over but felt that they should enter into the calculations.

Mr C. G Hamilton: I disagree. The over consists of six balls—a no-ball is not included—and, therefore, a noball is not a ball. Mr A. G Williams: All the senior scorers I have experienced calculate the bonus poinits by counting all the balls.

Mr E. D Bennett: I support Mr Hamilton. To bring in the bonus points system benefits the batting side; yet we are helping it further by including no-balls in the calculations.

Mr A. R. Mac Gibbon agreed with Mr Bennett and Mr Hamilton. “After all, you can’t say that a throw is a ball. It is just not a ball" However, Mr Williams countered: “You can’t hit a six off a ball that isn't." He then moved that the rule stay as it is; but the motion was lost on the show of hands. .

Requests from the South Canterbury and Canterbury Women’s Cricket Associations for the services of the profes-

sdonal coach, P. B. Wight, were referred to the coaching committee. The managers for Canterbury teams during the season a>re as follows: Mr F. F Dawson, Auckland at Christchurch; Mr C. G. Snook, Northern Districts at Christchurch; Mr A. E. L. Britton. Wellington ait Wellington; Mr W. Morris. Otago at Christchurch; Mr G. P. Dryden.

Central Districts ait Nelson: Mr Blakeley, Canterbury v. Combined Minor and SubAssociations’ XI. It was decided that the possibility of a centennial match with Otago be “borne in mind.’’ Mr I. A. Baxter said that there were not many festival matches in New Zealand—and that at the Masterton Golden Games was a big success—and a possibility would be a Sunday match at the Queen Elizabeth II Park.