EARLIER INCIDENT

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 38, 15 February 1933, Page 9

EARLIER INCIDENT

THE QUEENSLAND MATCH

'TOUCH OF TEMPER"

(Written for "The Post," by; Arthur "■; ''. : Mailey.) A good deal - has been written in favour, of and against Larwood's " legtheory." Whether this .form-oft attack should be tolerated or suppressed, those who suggest that "leg-theory" bowling should.be abolished do so because they think its sole object it to intimidate, and is likely to injure batsmen. Until it could be fairly certain, however, that Larwood's object was to intimidate batsmen, it was. difficult to find any fault with fast leg-theory. At Brisbane, however, something very close to intimidation, took place on the 'Gabba Ground, -when Oxenham was batting- for Queensland against M.C.C. I have never-yet, as far as I know, questioned an umpire's decision through the Press, and I would not refer to umpire Scott's in this article, only for the fact that it has a bearing on the Larwood-Oxenham incident. Larwood bowled a fairly good length ball} and Oxenham pushed it to the leg side, where Allen, as far as most people could see, made a fair catch. • Oxenham stood and made no attempt to go out, and when the umpire was appealed to, he gave the verdict in favour of ham.Thi. decision apparently incensed Larwood to such a degree that out of the next five or six deliveries, he bowled four particularly short ones, which caused' Oxenham to duck his head. To me, Larwood appeared to show in his bowling a slight touch of temper, or to put it more mildly, annoyance at umpire Scott's decision. If Larwood wants support for his leg-theory tactics, his actions on this occasion will certainly not gain him any converts. Let us believe that it was a fair catch. In fact, I thought it was so obvious that it must have been a noball, but after dismissing that I came to the conclusion that the batsman at the'bowler's end must have obstructed the umpire's view. TheQ;C.A., in its wisdom, does not allow Pressmen in the members' enclosure or near the dressing-room, otherwise we might have had a clearer view of the incident. The 'fact remains, however, that Oxenham was given not out, and the incident should have ended there. Oxenham had a perfect tight to stand his ground, because Allen was close, and the shot was played fairly hard, and' Oxenham himself might not have seen the actual catch. I am certain that if Oxenham had thought he was caught cleanly he would have left without any appeal. ■ : • I regret haying referred to this particular incident at such length, but its bearing on leg-theory tactics or "bodyline" bowling as the Board of Control prefers to call it, probably calls for more than a passing mention. If Larwood was not bowling at his top pace before this incident, he certainly .trained every muscle to produce his top speed after it. The wickot did not assist Larwood, or the other bowlers for that matter. The bumping ball came off tho wicket slowly, and in some cases barely reached tho wickctkeeper : on the full. On • other occasions we havo seen Ames, jumping up with his : arms extended to stop the flying ball