No attempt to mislead

Press, 25 November 1982, Page 36

No attempt to mislead

No attempt was made by the High School Old Boys club to mislead the Canterbury Cricket Association when asking whether a replacement be allowed for Richard Hadlee during the next round of first grade championship matches, the Old Boys captain, Cran Bull, said yesterday. Bull was replying to yesterday’s report in “The Press” of the association’s management committee meeting on Tuesday night. The committee ruled that Old Boys had no case for a replacement under the rules covering players selected for representative cricket. The verbal request for clarification was made by Bull to Mr R. Reward, the chairman of the competitions committee.

Bull said yesterday that he had believed Hadlee was required to be in Auckland on December 4 by the New Zealand Cricket, Council.

“He is certainly required to be there for the doublewicket tournament on December 5, and for the duration of the under 22 tournament which begins on December 6. I accept that I did not specifically ask Richard as to his reasons for being away from Christchurch on December 4, but simply assumed it was connected with the tournament and at the council’s request,” Bull said. It was on that basis that he telephoned Mr Heward for a ruling, Bull said. He had previously learned that his opposing captain, David Stead (Riccarton), had no objection to Hadlee playing next Saturday and being replaced on December 4.

Bull said he would like it clarified that the meeting was informed that Hadlee had' no national commitments from a telephone call to the N.Z.C.C. secretary, Mr G. T. Dowling.

“The point should be made that we did not request Richard be allowed to be replaced — we simply asked for a ruling. We were not asking for any special treatment or favours or that rules be bent.

“I categorically reject the assumption which appears to have been made that I deliberately set out to mislead the committee. As I made the request on behalf of the club it has been implied that I was at least a party to some sort of deception,” said Bull.

“I would also make it crystal clear that Richard has not misled me or anyone else as to his reasons for his being in Auckland,” he said. Hadlee had not given any reason for being absent and Bull said that bis own “innocent assumption” fell well short of being an attempt to mislead. “I would also make it clear? that if Richard’s.' absence fit Auckland is not for a council commitment the association’s decision is obviously the correct one and my club has no complaints on that score,”; Bull said.