Bowler’s Action Criticised

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31615, 28 February 1968, Page 17

Bowler’s Action Criticised

The action of the New Zealand fast bowler, G. A. Bartlett, who took six wickets in India’s second innings in the second test, was described as “a little suspect” by the Indian manager, Mr Ghulam Ahmed, yesterday.

“No bowler bowling at Bartlett’s pace can obtain that extra bounce and speed he gets from an occasional ball, without some change in his action,” said Mr Ahmed. However, there was no [ question of any official com-; plaint being made about I Bartlett’s action. “This is only my personal opinion, and I consider it is the duty of the umpires to' rule on a bowler’s action,” he added. PITCH CONDEMNED Mr Ghulam Ahmed had I some strong comments to make about the Lancaster; Park pitch. “It was not a five-day! pitch. At the end of the | match the whole of the topj of the pitch had gone—there! was nothing left. "The only firm turf was a I narrow strip in line with the'

middle stumps. The bowlers hid gouged out pot-holes. It was not good, for the pitch had a tnnsiderable influence on the game. “Umpires should stop bowlers running on the pitch,” he said. “In this test too much damage was caused by bowlers following through on to the pitch. It comes under the heading of unfair play and umpires should stop it BELATED ACTION “It is not the batsman's job to complain as happened in the test. The umpires should take the first action.” Asked if he considered that the umpires acted belatedly in stopping the New Zealand bowler, R. C. Motz, from bowling after he had roughened the pitch with his follow-through, Mr Ghulam Ahmed said, emphatically, “Yes. “It was too late on the fourth day. The damage had been done by then. If necessary, he should have been called off well before that.”