CRICKET DECISIONS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 24, 29 January 1929, Page 13

CRICKET DECISIONS

OUTSPOKEN COMMENT

RECENT SHIELD MATCH

"GROSS MISTAKES MADE"

Tho umpiring in the recent Plunkcl HUiekl match between Auckland and Wellington at Auckland has given rise to much discussion, and the experience in that liinU-h is expected to lead to another attempt to have outside umpires appointed for in tor-provincial liiatchcs. Among those present at the Auckland-Wellington match was Mr. «. H. Ferguson, who represents the Wellington Umpires' Association on tho Wellington Cricket Association's Management Committee. He returned from (he North to-day convinced that the recommendation made by tlie Wellington Umpires' Association that tho umpires in Pluukct Shield and othor representative matches should be outsiders is a sound one, and that it is in the best interests of the game. "I have been given to understand," he states, "that in the Old Country this principle is strictly adhered to. There, ;i county umpire is not allowed to control any matches in which his county is engaged. The sooner the New Zealand Cricket Association adopts this principle in connection with its big fixtures Nic better it will be for all concerned."

With regard to various decisions in Iho Auckland-Wellington match, Mi 1. Ferguson states:—"lt is with some reluctance that I venture to express my opinion as regards the 'umpiring of Messrs. Turton and Harvey, but in view ut what has transpired I am constrained to do so. Umpires are human, and, I do not forget, are not infallible. The primary qualification of an ' efficient umpire is unimpaired vision and hearing. If an umpire is lacking in either of these his knowledge of the laws of cricket is at a discount, serious mistakes are unwittingly made, and the unfortunate batsman or bowler suffers. I do not for ono moment doubt the honesty of either gentleman who controlled the fixture at Eden Park, but gross mistakes were made, confident appeals were ignored, and, to say the least of it, the visitors did not take kindly to the decisions given. The unsatisfactory umpiring was the only fly in the ointment in connection with the match, which was played with the friendliest feelings between Iho two | teams. i LBW DECISIONS. "The lbw decision is a great bugbear j io all cricketers. Ninety-nino batsmen j out of a hundred will not admit they are out lbw. But tho rule concerning Jbw decision is plain. ' Three things have to be considered: (1) The ball must be pitched in a _ straight line between wicket and wicket. . (2) The ball must first touch a part of the batsman's person (other than his hand). (3) In tho opinion of the umpire, the ball would have hit the wicket. j ■ "In Wellington's first innings Dempster, Hiddleston, and Lowry were given out lbw, the first two to Allcott, bowling round the wicket. The question as to whether an lbw decision can be got from a bowler bowling round the wicket is one that has been the subject of much controversy, and probably will always be so. If such a bowler delivers a straight ball (without any swerve) then such a decision is impossible unless it is a full tosser on to the pads of the striker. If he is a break bowler the impossibility becomes an improbability. If tho ball is pitched full on to the batsman's pads there is little doubt but that it would have dislodged the bails, but unless it is thus pitched there is little chance of its hitting the wicket. The lbw decisions against Dempster and Hiddleston came under this category. "If a swerving ball is pitched by a round-the-wicket bowler in a straight line between the wickets, say threequarters or half a yard in front of the popping crease, what umpire could say I hat such a ball would remove a bail, hearing in mind the width of the wicket is eight inches. Probably no umpire or cricketer in the Dominion is more conversant with the laws of cricket and their practical application than the veteran Mr. Dan M'Keuzie, of Wellington, and he is emphatic on the point that unless a round-thc-wicket bowler pitches a full length ball, there is no chance of a lbw decision. It was not such a ball that dismissed either Dempster or Hiddleston.

"VEKY STIFF BACKS."

"In. the case of Lowry, out Ibw to Weir bowling over the wicket, the circumstances were different. Lowry was struck-high on the thigh by a rising •ball, and the decision in this case was certainly doubtful. I noticed throughout the four days' cricket that iimprres Turton and Harvey had very stift backs. Perhaps the long white coats had too much starch. If an umpire knows his ■business when a ball is delivered ho will stoop to get his eye as near as possible in a direct line with the wickets. He is thus better able to iudse whether a rising ball in its flight would remove the bails. This procedure is evidently quite foreign to the Auckland umpires, for not once during the whole course of the match did either gentleman act in this way. Lowry was given out lbw to a rising ball, and it is very doubtful whether or not it would have hit the wicket. Every umpire knows or should know what to do when there is a doubt. "Confident appeals for apparent catches behind the wickets were not given. Dempster, Whitelaw, and Postles survived such appeals, and I believe the batsmen in each case were quite prepared to walk to the pavilion. It is evident that sight and hearing of the umpires concerned were defective. Ihe snicks off the bat in each case wore audible all over the ground, and the confident appeals made supported the general opinion that in each case the ia "^gg^jQjj" 0F STUMPING.

"Tho stumping of Worker and M'Girr by the veteran Eowntree were tho results of the gentle art of pointing. It appears to mo Eowntree has the habit of hanging on to the ball a little longer than he should, with a view of dismissing the striker. Unless his attempt to stump the batsman is made immediately on his taking tho ball, I should unhesitatingly say the ball was 'dead.' Worker was unfortunate in being given out stumped. It appeared to me that, although he raised his heel, his too was well behind the popping crease. With regard to M'Girr, I am inclined to the opinion that Eowntree took tho ball from the front of the wicket. I watched him very carefully at times during the course of the match, and frequently he infringed the rule in this respect. lam given to understand by an Auckland senior erieketer, that 25 per cent, of the decisions' Eowntree gets are the results of the 'gentle art of pointing.' This is ;i man's game, and a wicketkeeper of such ability as Eowntroe has no need to resort to tricks to secure tho dismissal of a batsman."