THAT UMPIRE INCIDENT.

Evening Star, Issue 15138, 20 March 1913, Page 1

THAT UMPIRE INCIDENT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln year footnote to my letter re tile cricket incident at Cavisbrook on Satin day you any that 1 am incorrect in sayi i that "the two captains ignored the mi: ' and took it. upon themselves to. thwar b decision: ami this was done without • . Milting the umpire." According to v this statement is incorrect, because tl.-■ pire admits ho bad made a mistak. " he would have liad no objection to ’ going back, but he was annoyed a '•'■' v, consulting the- others and <•’ -v %>’ ; and then asking him tie »!. I never “ onlimU r this statement of " Onlooker’s/’ , ] diii, Imt as you seem to pin you, this .statement let us look at it c, Siedeberg consulted (ho others, called tlie batsman back, and then asked the umpire if be minded. Surely (bis is putting the cart before the horse with a vengeance, and I never imagined that you would holster up ycur case with this weak statement. The very man who should have been consulted, and tlie only man who had the ]lower nr the authority to call the man back, was not consulted till .after—not before.— that batsman had returned to the crease. (1 am taking your own version as correct.) Xo wonder Mr Foster admits that Im w.aa annoyed. Small blame to him. So would anyone with any spirit in him be. I still contend that in effect and according to your own .showing my statement is conc<: *i>, >• "the two rapfains ignored the umpire and took it upon themselves to thwart his decision. and this was done without consultinu the umpire." Hie consultation with tue umpire should have taken place before the batsman was called back, leave obtain-' ! from the umpire, and then all trouble would have been avoided. ])o you contend dilfereutly 't And will you toll us if Mr Foster’s consent was ever obtained—as it certainly should have been—to Austin continuing his innings.—l a.m, etc.. R. Ferguson. March 20. [Mr Ferguson’s letter calls for no mm menl. Our readers, with the facts already published, can'judge for themselves as to whether Mr I'o’ter ought to have refused to continue his duties as umpire under the circumstances.—Ed. K.S.j