THE CARISBROOK v. ST. KILDA MATCH.

Evening Star, Issue 15138, 20 March 1913, Page 2

THE CARISBROOK v. ST. KILDA MATCH.

TO THE EDITOR. SiiV —Id “ Cricket Chatter ”in your issue ot to-night ‘'Onlooker” states “that the Cr.riebrook team had no right to say that the game shall he played out on the wicket, originally used.” The facts are. that the ■niiket used on the first day had been rclurfcd at both ends, which is contrary to all the rules of the game, the o;nIv thing allowed being cutting the grass and rolling. J’hc person who authorised, the re turfing and the caretaker evidently do not know their business. The two capitains agreed that it was unfit to play on, and then they again agreed not to 'play on the fresh wicket, which, hy the way, had not been cut, rolled, or marked out. Then a consultation between the. two captains and the umpires resulted in the latter saying the game was off. “ Onlooker ” winds up by faying that, to his thinking, the decision of tho Grade Committee should go to St. Kilda. Thank you, “Mr Onlooker.” When your advice is wanted in these matters I have no doubt the Grade Committee will ask you for it. Don’t you think, “ Mr Onlooker,” that it would havo been better for you to have kept your remarks out of print until the Grade Committee had given their verdict? One would think by your remarks that you are biased in favor of St. Kilda, and, a, newspaper man ought to know that it is not fair to either side to make comments while the matter is, to use a legal term, sub judice. The Carishrook Club had every right to take the stand they did, notwithstanding ‘‘Onlooker's” or anyone else's opinion.—I am, etc., ’ C.C.C. March 17. [lf the two captains agreed not to play on either the old wicket or a fresh wicket, how comes it that the St. Kilda captain has claimed the match by reason of tlie other side declining to carry out their engagement? Why should “Onlooker” have a bias in favor of the junior club? The statement is without fact or foundation, i he hum would appear to be on the part of the writer of the letter. It does not require prophetic powers to discover what the letteis “ C.C.C.” stand for. The matter is now sub judice, it having last night been referred to the Grade Committee, hut it certainly was not when "Onlooker” penned his notes. “C.C.C.” is disingenuous.—Sporting Ed. E.S.I