Sporting standards in cricket

Press, 7 March 1978, Page 16

Sporting standards in cricket

Sir, — Chatfield’s dismissal of Randall appeared legal. First, he removed the bails as part of an overarm bowling action in which he did not release the ball. Second, a bowler is a fieldsman and therefore may use under or overarm action to run out a batsman who is outside the crease. Umpire Goodall’s warning to the English bowlers for running on the pitch at the southern end in the second innings was also reasonable. Umpire Monteith’s failure to do this in the first innings was no justification for Boycott’s criticism of Mr Goodall on television. I am pleased that Mr Goodall refused to be drawn into an argument about his colleague’s judgment. One can only admire Mr Goodall’s impartiality and firmness in the circumstances. — Yours, etc., D. B. HUTTON. 1 March 4, 1978. Sir, — I am heartily fed up with the bias that continually shows up in “The Press” towards World Series cricket. Your reports continue to refer to W.S.C. as the “Packer Circus” (March 1), and your sports editor, Mr Brittenden. slated the concept of W.S.C. from the outset. Further evidence of Mr Brittenden’s “stuffed shirt” attitude is in “The Press” this morning where, in his reply to a writer, he slips in: “Cricket ... is depreciating through gamesm a n s h i p and commercialism.” What rubbish. Isn’t it time we had some objectivity from such reputable reporters? W.S.C. as shown on TV2 has made some invaluable innovations to the game. Crash helmets bring safety and allow a more aggressive attitude to shotmaking. Certainly with crash helmets we would not have to worry about the unwritten law that Mr Brittenden refers to. With the white ball we can see it all. Come on W.S.C. and professionalism in all sports. — Yours, etc.,

GARRY URL WIN. March 3. 1978.

(This correspondence ia now closed. — Editor]