Croft’s disgusting action one of test cricket’s least savoury incidents

Press, 27 February 1980, Page 44

Croft’s disgusting action one of test cricket’s least savoury incidents

By

R. T. BRITTENDEN

If the crowd at Lancaster Park yesterday had not been a small one, and if New Zealanders were as excitable as those in some other parts of the cricket world, Colin Croft could well have sparked off a not.

The huge West Indian fast bowler put his shoulder into the umpire, Mr Fred Goodall, as he came in to bowl, and not even the most absurdly charitable could regard it as being accidental. It was a disgusting and dangerous exhibition of bad temper, one of the least savoury incidents to have occurred in test cricket anywhere. It obviously hurt Mr Gooddall, and it further damaged the tarnished reputation of this touring team. But nothing, apparently, has been done about it.

The umpires had no power to remove Croft from the bowling, or from the field. One former international — not a New Zealander — would have had Croft sent even further afield. Home. After the sour approach by the West Indies on Sunday, the game resumed yesterday in a cloistered calm, and that was welcome. But in Croft’s first over, he appealed for a leg-side, wick-et-keeping catch, and it was rejected by Mr Goodall. Croft said something to Mr Goodall, which was apparently unpleasant, for the two umpires walked to .the far end of the pitch, where the West Indies captain, Clive Lloyd, was standing in the slips. Lloyd did not have the courtesy to take a step or two forward to meet them. There was a consultation. However, Lloyd did have a word or two to say, about something, to Croft after the over had finished. But this was not the end of the unsavoury business, for Croft,

who, as a parting gesture on Sunday, had fired the last ball of the day head high at Jeremy Coney. Richard Hadlee hit him for a four and there were more words, after which Hadlee aimed his bat at Croft as if it were a rifle. Then Mr Goodall no-balledl Croft, for the eleventh time. | On his way back to hisi mark Croft insolently swepti the bails to the ground, so that the wicket had to be remade. And it was then that he came in and shouldered Mr Goodall. So there was anothermarch to Lloyd, who again; stood his ground and let Mr' Goodall come all the way.: At the end of the over Had-; lee, the striker, waved Croft away in the direction of the pavilion. Lloyd again spoke to Croft, but did not take him off, as he should have done, as an acknowledgment that his bowler had breached all bounds of reasonable conduct. But the over cost 15, including four byes from a bouncer which zoomed over the wicketkeeper’s head. During it, Croft was no-bal-led again, but this time he had run through and held on to the ball. An umpire must act on the foot position in relation to the crease.

But perhaps it gave Croft some sort of satisfaction — he gave no-one else any. Croft was also given a warning for intimidatory bowling during this violent, three-over spell.

The West Indian reaction to Croft’s misdemeanours would certainly have been sought had it been possible

to hold a press conference at the end of the day’s play. But a proposed conference was declined by the manager, Mr Willy Rodriguez, who said that “nothing has changed since yesterday.”

After lunch Lloyd was not on the field. He was in conference with Mr Graham Dowling, who is chairman of the New Zealand Board’s umpiring committee, which, according <o International Cricket Conference laws, handles all matters relating to umpire appointments. ■ Also at the conference were Messrs Walter Hadlee and Charles Collins, board members. Mr Collins is chairman of the Christ-church-based board executive.

The board members were told by Lloyd of the West Indies opinion of New Zealand umpires, and some umpires in particular. Lloyd was -told to put the

I complaints in writing, and a Tetter is now awaited. It is iclear that the West Indies want changes at Auckland, where the umpires appointed are Messrs J. B. Hastie and W. R. C. Gardiner. The West Indies obviously have no faith in New Zealand umpires, particularly in relation to appeals for catches behind the wicket. Approached after the meeting, Mr Collins said that no action could have been taken about Croft during the day. There had been no report from the umpires, who had intimated that everything was under control. The board could only act on a report from the umpires. He f.id the board had every faith in the standard of the umpires, and believed that they had conduc-ted themselves extremely well under severe pressure. If the main complaint from the West Indies is about catches behind the wicket, the New Zealanders are probably somewhat aggrieved too. It has now reached -the stage, however, that the West Indies seem to be appealing for almost anything, perhaps to give their case visual backing. Perhaps thr worst thing that has happened to the New Zealand section of -the tour is that the West Indians have done so well of late, especially in Australia. They probably felt that their defeat at Dunedin was tantamount to the Lions succumbing to Little Akaloa B. Not — to anticipate angry letters to the Editor — that Little Akaloa B has not turned out some very fine players.