UPROAR AND PROTEST

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 13, 17 January 1933, Page 6

UPROAR AND PROTEST

"Members of the Australian Board of Control have cabled to the Marylebone Cricket Club formally protesting against the policy of the English bowlers." According to this cabled sentence, the leg bowling with legside field (which bowling may or may not hit the batsman's body) is a policy, and it is a bowlers' policy. Presumably, to say that it is a captain's policy would be at least equally true; but apparently it is not a managers' policy, for the cablegram states that "officials" conferred with Messrs. P. F. Warner and R. C. N. Palairet (who seem to be a sort of joint management of the M.C.C. team) with the result that "it is understood that the managers explained that they had no control over the team when it is' on the field." The diplomatic situation is thus tending to clear itself to the extent of' establishing who is responsible and to whom the appeal lies; and if the cabled protest sent by "members of the Australian Board of Control" is equivalent to an official protest by the Board, therf the matter should quifckly come to a head—which is what well-wishers of cricket as an Empire-binding sport Would desire.

Cricket is too big a thing in Empire psychology to be left solely to the team on the field, when popular outbursts like that at Adelaide have occurred. When the highest cricket courts are approached— courts with competence in the legislation as well as in the administration of cricket— the public may at least have the feeling that both the play aspect and the civic aspect of a very difficult problem will be competently, investigated. A bowling "policy" that succeeds through danger to limb and life—if the Larwood bowling and fielding plan be found to amount to that— would be a new cricket development, though occasional bumpers, on any part of the wicket, are as old as the hills. It should be remembered that —according to the cablegram—the ball which struck Oldfield's head struck his bat first—which may mean that the bat deflected it on to his head, or failed to deflect it from its original course to his head. A rule restricting speed, or restricting speed in a given direction, would be hard to draft. Another plan-—umpire discretion as to what is dangerous— would resemble referee discretion in Rugby and police discretion in motoring. It is unwise to jump to conclusions from still disputed facts. Side • issues like—"What is an apology, and when?"—ban be left to settle themselves. .