CRICKET UMPIRES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 257, 26 July 1930, Page 4

CRICKET UMPIRES

English Criticism AUSTRALIAN-N.Z. TOUR “I noticed in The Dominion’ of Wednesday last,” writes L, T. Cobcroft, * a heading ’Umpires Criticised,’ the book of Messrs. Allom and Turnbull, describing the 19211-30 Australian and New Zealand tour, freely criticising Australian” umpiring. The authors give many instances of bad decisions against the Englishmen. The chief criticism is directed to the match against Victoria, where the umpire insisted that the light was lit for play and in consequence Gilligan and Duieepsinhji were speedily dismissed, and when the players came in Benson received a stone in the neck and the crowd hissed. Criticism such as this, I feel sure, is not justified, especially when no exception to the umpiring has been taken by previous English players,'who were and are very much higher up in the cricket world than my friends mentioned above. There certainly was lio complaint by Chapman s men in the last series of Test games in Australia; in fact, the only question as to the umpire being at fault in those games was in the Kippax incident, when that very fine sportsman thought the ball he was given out bowled to came off the wicketkeeper’s pads. Surely in a close thing like that the umpire, if he was inclined to favour Australia, could when appealed to have said ‘not out/ No, that umpire was there not as a partisan of any particular side, but there to give a decision on an appeal being. made to him as to whether in his opinion the batsman was out or not. Being perfectly satisfied in his mind that the batsman was bowled, he ruled accordingly. Messrs. Allom and Turnbull have made an early error in their paragraph dealing with this criticism, as they refer to the umpire insisting that the game go on in what they say was a bad light. Well, no umpire can do that on his own; both umpires must agree after an appeal has been made on that point. Gilligan in his notes to the Press on the eve of the M.C.C. team’s departure from New Zealand homewards made some scathing comments on the umpiring (with a couple of exceptions) in New Zealand. Now I venture to say that there are some capable umpires in Wellington, and I have every reason to believe in the other centres of this Dominion. I have no hesitation in saying that nowhere in the British dependencies has more been done and is being done by the umpires’ associations in the chief towns to fit and qualify gentlemen to fill these positions successfully. If we can believe the cabled news of late, Australia and New Zealand are not the only countries under censure. Was the umpire at fault when Duieepsinhji caught Hobbs a few weeks ago or when a’Beckett caught him; or was the great Surrey batsman in error? Why did the English umpires not proceed with the game in the first Test when the Australians wanted tq commence their first innings, why wait for the sun to come out? _ And what did the'umpires do in the third Test at Leeds? They refused to allow the game to go in spite of the hooting by the spectators of the wilful waste of time. Well-known critics and Test captains in Falkiner, A. H. Gilligan, Warner, , and many other cricketers of high standing were perfectly •satisfied that the light was never bad enough until 5.45 p.m, to cause an adjournment. There is no doubt these adjournments . robbed the Australians of a victory. Yet who would say that the umpires in these games were unfair? No one would make me believe that any umpire goes on to the field of play with any intention of leaning to one side; if he did so. all interest in the game for himself would be gone, while his reputation as an umpire would instantly cease.”