Game’s conscience pricked

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33783, 4 March 1975, Page 28

Game’s conscience pricked

(By)

JOHN WOODCOCK,

of "The Times," through N.Z.P.A.)

LONDON.

No matter where one goes, or who one talks to. the conversation comes round to shortpitched bowling.

As for the Auckland incident in which Ewen Chatfield so nearly lost his life, [opinions vary widely from that of the “Guardian’s" man 'at the match who wrote that “no-one I have met in Auckland has held Lever in any ;way to blame for what happened,” to my own — that [Lever’s was a calculated act Ito take unreasonable advantage of a bowler’s inability to bat.

In their efforts to keep [such bowling within bounds, [the authorities are thinking [for the moment more in ; terms of persuasion than legislation. Any proposal for a change I in the law would, in any case, have to await the next meeting of the International Cricket Conference, which is not until the end of June. Pakistan has cabled Lord’s asking for this meeting to be brought forward so that what is an urgent matter can be discussed before, rather than after, the World Cup. The law as it stands (“the persistent bowling of fast, short-pitched balls is unfair if. in the opinion of the umpire at the bowler’s end, it constitutes a systematic attempt at intimidation”) is, to my mind, too casual an interpretation. When, for example, does an “attempt at intimidation’* be-.

come systematic? And when does “persistent” become persistent?

For the sake of an easier definition, would it not be better to say, simply, that “the bowling of fast, shortpitched bails is unfair if, in the opinion of ither umpire, it constitutes dangerous play.” COLD-BLOODED Specifying the number of bouncers to be bowled at each batsman according to his position in the order is altogether too cold-blooded.

Neither — as we saw in Australia — is it practicable. How many, if you like, do you assign against .Walker, who, although he batted at No. 8 for Australia, and is primarily a bowler, averaged nearly 50 in the test matches?

As for a line drawn across the pitch, who is going to watch it. unless (heaven forbid) a kind of service court judge is brought into action? It would be asking too much of the bowler’s umpire, with all he already has to do, to decide which side of the line each ball pitched. In the case of the squareleg umpire, he is at too wide an angle and too far away to make a hairline judgment. No, such a line could be used only as a guide. Baseball went a part of the way towards solving a related problem by making the wearing of helmets compulsory for the striker. It is also accepted as being morally wrong for a pitcher to aim at the striker.

Although at baseball the ball is hurled %t a faster speed than at cricket, and

over a shorter distance, only one striker has ever been killed. HELMETS Helmets, no doubt, have had something to do with this, although if they were to be worn for playing cricket, they would probably lead to more reckless bowling than there is already. In seeking to make the game less hazardous, it is crucially important not to drive fast bowlers out of it. Some of the most thrilling innings ever played have been against bowlers bowling both fast and short. There are batsmen (but not bowlers) playing today who. with their eye in, would give a guinea a time for Lever’s bouncers. Just as there are thousands of people in England who are counting the days to the time when they can go and see for themselves just how fearsome Thomson and Lillee are.

If, in the meantime, they were to hear that the bouncer had been banned, they might change their minds about going. , „ “Have you got another Larwood, Bill.” asked the secretary of the Australia board of control of Bill Bowes, when he landed in Australia iust after the war, “because if you have, the grounds won’t be large enough.”

This winter, on one or two occasions, they hardly were —because of Thomson and Lillee.

Should it be thought that we are getting soft in our old age, the same Mr Bowes makes some relevant comparisons between the bodyline

tour on which he went as a player, and the tour last winter," snatches of which he watched on television.

Although not liking to see the lack of mettle shown by some of England’s present batsmen, he believes that they had more to contend with than the Australians did in 1932-33 from Larwood, Voce, and Allen.

For one thing the lbw law, as it applied then, made batting easier than it does now. You could only .be out when the ball pitched between wicket and wicket, which meant that you needed to play nothing wide of the stumps. Today you can be leg before to a ball pitching outside the off-stump. NEVER AIMED

More contentiously, Mr Bowes insists that Larwood never aimed to hit the Australian batsmen, which Lillee (“I bowl bouncers for one reason, and that is to hit the batsman and thus intimidate him”) and Thomson both do, and which Lever (“I wanted to get him caught off the glove”) did to someone whose highest first-class score was five. This is what Mr Bowes finds so horrifying — that there should be at large bowlers whose aim it is to hit the batsman.

Now, because of Chatfield, the game’s conscience is being troubled again — the conscience not least of the captains and the manager, for if the umpires are undecided iwhat is fair, you can be eure (the players are not