UMPIRE AND BOWLER

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 183, 1 May 1933, Page 9

UMPIRE AND BOWLER

Australians’ Body-line Ban Criticised TEST OF INTIMIDATION (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Received April 29, 6.35 p.m.) London, April 29. Publication of the decision of the Australian Board of Cricket Control to prevent body-line bowling has met with criticism from, cricket writers in England. The Australian amendment, it is thought, would embarrass the umpire and interfere with the rights of bowlers. The “Daily Telegraph,” commenting on the Australian Board of Cricket Control’s body-line decision, says that if the rule becomes law the umpire would have the power to direct a fast bowler how he must place the field, and how he must bowl under the pain of being prevented to bowl at all. 111-feeling might be engendered if a dictatorial umpire was in charge of a wicket at which a temperamental fast bowler was operating, and this might lead to trouble far worse than arose over Larwood. It would be far better to draw a couple of chalk lines and show where the ball may not be pitched. It would be better still to get to the root of the trouble by amending the leg-before-wicket rule. The “Morning Post’s” cricket writer asks how is an umpire to decide whether the bowler intends to intimidate or injure a batsman. Furthermore, a bowler, within the laws of cricket, is entitled to intimidate. It must be remembered that tlie ball which intimidates one batsinan is not the source of terror to another. “It is better to lose the match than to lose your opponents’ respect,” writes Mr. G. L. Jessop, the well-known cricketer, in an article in the “Scotsman” condemning body-line bowling. He urges that an early decision be taken against this most objectionable method of attack which is unnecessarily dangerous to limb and life. Intimidation, he adds, is opposed to the spirit and tradition of the game. BOARD’S DECISION Umpire’s Added Power MAY BAN BOWLER Melbourne, April 28. Sitting until an early hour this morning. the Board of Control decided on taking action to prevent body-line bowling in Australian cricket, and has asked the Marylebone Cricket Club to take similar action. Messrs. Hartigan, Noble, Woodfull, and Richardson, who were appointed to consider the question, submitted the following recommendation as an addition to tbe laws of cricket:— Any ball delivered, which in the opinion of the umpire, is bowled at the batsman with intent to intimidate or. injure him, shall be considered unfair, and a “no ball” shall be called, and the bowler notified of the reason. If the offence is repeated by the same bowler in the same innings he shall immediately be instructed by the umpire to cease bowling, anti the over shall be regarded ns completed. Such bowler shall not again be permitted to bowl during the course of the filings then in progress. The board resolved to accept the report and decided to send a copy of the new Australian law by cable to the Marylebone Cricket Club with a request that it be considered by that body with the object of its application to all cricket.