THAT UMPIRE INCIDENT.

Evening Star, Issue 15137, 19 March 1913, Page 2

THAT UMPIRE INCIDENT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l take strong exception to you* cricket writer's (" Onlooker") remark anent the incident at Carisbrodk on Saturday: "Why the- umpire (Mr Foster) should, under the circumstances, have sulked and refused to continue his duties is inconceivable." In my judgment, " sulked " is a harsh term to use. Mr Foster never sulked. Ho took up a dignified attitude as a protest against what he conceived to be a personal slight. He is there to control the game, and in the course of these duties ho was called upon to give a decision. He did so. That decision was interfered with and nullified by a person or persons who have no rights or standing in the matter. According to the laws of cricket, which the umpires are there to sde carried out, the captains have no more- right than an ordinary player or an outsider would have to interfere with an umpire's decision. But, notwithstanding this law of the game, what happened on Saturday ? The two captains ignored the umpire and took it upon themselves to thwart his deoision. And this was done without consulting the umpire; lie was ignored altogether. I havo little doubt that if it had been pointed out to Mr Foster that he had made a mistake in his decision, and he had been asked if under these circumstances there was any objection to the batsman returning to continue his innings, he would havo readily admitted that the weight of evidence was against him, and that if all parties were agreeable he would be quite willing to fall in with their wishes and reverse his decision, as an umpire can. do. I understand this happened in the Downes-Condliffe incident at the Caledonian Ground. But not so at Carisbrook. The batsman (Austin) was called back by the opposing captain (Siedeberg), without the consen| of the umpire being first obtained. And therein lies the material difference between the two cases. They a re'not parallel. Last Saturday Mr Foster, although he was in the supreme position ot controlling play, had his decision entirely ignored, and that decision treated with contempt. What man of any spirit would stand this J' And to call it "sulking" is to misapply the word. Rather, as ] said before, Would I call ib a, dignified attitude to take up as a protest against a perhaps unintentional slight, but nevertheless a slight. In my opinion, your cricket writer should not have condemned the course taken by the umpire, but rather that of the captain, however well-meaning, in interfering without first consulting the umpire and getting his consent to reverse his decision. Another phase I should like to mention : There should hi enough esprit de corps amongst the umpires to stand °y one another in rase of trouble. \vhat is one Umpire's trouble to-day may he any other umpire's to-morrow. Any umpire is likely to have the same experience as Mr Foster had on Saturday, and there should certainly be a distinct understanding as to wlio is to control the game, the umpire or .the captains. If the latter, then there is no use. for the Umpires' Association, and the sooner it is disbanded the better. Mr Foster I do not know personally, only as a brother umpire; and duty to a man in trouble, and who, in my opinion, is in no way to blame for that trouble, impels me' to write as I have.—l am, etc', I\. Fkugvsson. March 18. [While seeking t.V uphold his brother 1 umpire's " dignified " attitude, our correspondent seems to have entirely overlooked the statement made on Monday morning by Mr Foster to one of our reporters. He "admits that he made a mistake in savins 'Out,' and he says he would have had no objection to Austin going back, but he was annoyed by Siedeberg consulting the others and taking the man back and then asking him (Foster) if he minded." Thus it is incorrect to say that " the two captains ignored the umpire and took it upon themselves to thwart his decision; and this was done without consulting the umpire." Mr Foster admits that he was onnnyed. The suggestion that there should be esprit de corps among umpires may be interpreted as a reflection on Mr Smyth for filling the breach when Mr Foster retired. Tf that was tho writer's intention. Mr Smyth can safely be left to defend himself.—Ed. E.S.]