THE PLUNKET SHIELD MATCH

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 27, 1 February 1929, Page 6

THE PLUNKET SHIELD MATCH

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In last Saturday's "Auckland Star" I read a surprising article attributed to S. H. Ferguson, and I was further surprised to find the same views expressed in an article in Tuesday's ".Evening Post," as tho result, apparently, of an interview your cricket writer had with'that gentle-' man on his return to Wellington.

As my tame was mentioned in the article, I wrote to the "Auckland Star" disassociating myself altogether from the views therein expressed, and this communication to you is with the same object in view.

Mr. Ferguson states that he is an umpire, and it is from that standpoint that I tako issue with him. He surely in his criticisms forgot that Messrs. Turlon and Harvey were fellow umpires, and for that reason—if for no other —he should have kept silent, no matter what his feelings as an individual follower of cricket may have been. Mud has often been slung at umpires in the past, but this is the first time that I have known of an umpire doing the throwing. It is well known that I have decided views on what constitutes leg-before-wicket, as Mr. Ferguson aays in his criticism, but I am still more emphatic 'that there is only one person on the field of play who can say definitely that the ball was pitched ou the wicket, that it would have hit the wicket, and that it was part of the batsman's person, other than his bat in hand or his hand, that prevented its doing so. And that person is the umpire at the bowler's end. The bowler cannot, for generally he is out of the straight line when he finishes his delivery, and the wicket-keeper has his view obstructed by the batsman himself. . Therefore to me it is ridiculous for Mr. Ferguson, seated as he was in the scoring box, fully 50 yards away from the actual wicket, and keeping the scores for the Wellington team, to criticise these Ibw decisions. Ho could only have gained his information from hearsay, and that from ii particularly prejudiced quarter—viz., the batsman. It is true that the men who were given out by the Ibw route may have expresesd the opinion that the j

decisions were doubtful or incorrect ones, but Mr. Ferguson will agree with my statement that it is a rare thing indeed to find a batsman who will agree that the umpire has given a right decision when he has been adjudged leg-before-wicket.

As to the. capability of Messrs. Turton and Harvey, I have stood with each of them on separate occasions in matches between New Zealand and Australia, and they impressed me as being fully alive to their responsibilities as umpires, and also with a good knowledge of the laws of the game. They made mistakes, it is true—and so did I—but the umpire has not officiated yet who did not make a mistake at some time or another. Even those great umpires, Jim Phillips and Bob Crockett, have had their lapses. But to infer, as Mr. Ferguson has done, that these Auckland umpires deliberately gave wrong decisions, is, in my opinion, not playing the game.—l am, etc.,

D. M'KENZIE