CRICKET

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 11833, 14 January 1933, Page 10

CRICKET

PLAY IN.• GISBORNE

FIRST:: B;OPN3} AVERAGES

G. PvOBEJITSON: TOPS . BATTING.

FORSTER HEAI)S BOWLEP.S

HOSIER!g . GOOD -DOUBLE

The . completionof . the first round of the local '-"first grade competition last Saturday';’ le.ft-rthe ".position. ’ very open ahd’' thQ ! .ultimate resting, place of the Barry Cup "for. the "season mav be with any of the six club's competing. Old-: Boys,, who have: enjoyed a•• substantial'- measure of luck, lead the way-with,'26 points, Gisborne Club' are second -with 22, Civil Service . and City share, third berth with 21 points apiece, ; and then follow Turariganui'(l6V and High School (141.

The averages for the first half of the season make ' interesting reading and some of the. positions disclosed are rather, unexpected. One feature in the is,blcT|did" ali-riound play of E. T> Hosier (Tiiranganui),' this man being sixth on?-the' batting "list (average (111.7) and' second among the bowlers (average O;2V “O. \T.“Rohertsoh. • '(Civil.;; Service) Is at the head

AMONG THE BOWLERS

Tossing up ■ tempting "slows,” H. F. Forster has • lately secured some excellent bowling figures, notably sis for l 6; against Tnranganui, and nas won first place in' the list- of averacros. ": Hosier,:’ also a slow bowler, is° second- - wickets at an average of 9-2, while .0. It. Olsen (who has sent down more overs than anyone else except. G. Lockett), agam a slow howler,' fills third berth ™tk 26 . victim's' fit - aitaverage of 11.2. F. Bennett. (.lf wickets at an average fifMLT) is fourth,; so that slow bowlers fill tlfi first four pfices. J-

H.' F.. Forster (G.) E. L>. Hosier i(T.) O. ffc Olsen ; (Ti) F. Pennett* : <G,) J. • C. 'Pfiw;- X 0.5.) M. Bobinspn , (GO V.' Gauiton (G.) H; Macei G. . Lockett ■ (O.B.)

|of " tha, batsmen. (average 84) and H. |F. Forster" (Gisborno Club) rather 'unexpectedly tops, the howling with i.the' excellent average,, of 7.7 for 17 iwickets. -

THE BATTING AVERAGES

By virtue of his splendid run of centuries in - three successive innings,

G. J. Robertson is an easy first in the hatting list- and he has shown his best form to date this season. S. Ward is second with a a average of just under 60, but so far he has had only four visits to the crease. C. Trifser has had a. low score or two lately, but he has the good average of 52 and can usually be defended on for a. score, of useful dimensions. W. Carson, the High School player, is really the find of the season and he has made a very marked. advance since last year; many more successes should be in store for him. P. Dow is fifth on the list with an average of 36.4 and Busier follows Closely, 'with p. Scholium, who has displayed very good form in his last match or so, : the only other to average over 30. I<\ Bennett, who has had only two innings, is not included in the principal list, hut he is in good form and topped the century in one of his outings. The complete list of averages is as follows:

C. Dow's fast falls have produced 31 wickets (the highest aggregate) at 11.9 runs apiece, V. Carillon, H. Mace and 6. Lockett have each taken over 20 wickets at a fairly low cost, the last - named’s total being hut one less than J. C. Dow’s.. G. J. Hobertson is .twelfth, on the list with 26 victims, but he has been decidedly more expensive than usual. E. James’‘is another unusually low down on the list, his 19 wickets costing 19.7 runs each. J. W. Blathwo.yt has enjoyed only moderate "success so far, but he has had an unlucky season and deserved greater reward for his efforts. The averages are as follows;

LAW 4-5

HINTS TO PLAYERS

(Specially Written for the ‘‘Gisborne Times'’ by B. McKenzie, of Wellington),

Law 45 is a rule that is nor generally understood. It reads: “They (the umpires) shall allow two minutes for each striker to come in; and ten minutes between each innings. When they call ‘Piny’ the side refnsiprr the play shall lose the match.’ A note roads: '‘The elTect of this law is that the umpire shall decide whether the delay of the individual amounts to a refusal of the batting side to play. Tt provides a specific penalty, in such n ease but none for the individual.”

The rule was forcibly brought under notice in a. match between fhe Old Boys and Institute teams in Wellington. Old Boys were playing against time for the draw, and one batsman took over three minutes to take up his po.bion at the batting crease. The Institute captain claimed this batsman’s wicket because he bad exceeded his allotted time, and the umpire, in allowing the appeal, declared the match to be finished and pulled out the stumps.

At the request of Um Institute captain, however, ‘ the stumps were replaced and the match continued. He stated that he did not wish his team to score a win on a technical point like that.

Several mistakes were made in connection with this incident. First, the ■wrong umpire—not the one at the bowler’s end—was appealed to; second, the latter did not call "Play’’ as tboi rule states he should before declaring the rule to have been broken , third, the batsman, although ho bad exceeded his time, was willing to take bis strike, and therefore it could nob be ruled that his act was a refusal of bis side to play; and, fourth, once the stumps were lifted out of the ground the umpires had no authority to replace them.

AN OTAGO-WELLT.NGTON MATCH

Alany years ago I was umpiring in a Wellington-Otago match. Otago had batted first,, and were all. dismissed towards the end of the opening day’s play. "Dick” Torrance, who for over twenty years played for Otago in all its representative matches, was'then, at the beginning of his career as a howler. A light northerly wind was blowing, which was right to Torrance’s liking, and his bowling created great havoc amongst the early Wellington batsmen.

At about five minutes to six four Wellington wickets, bad fallen for $5 runs, and the fieldsmen and umpires became impatient, as the next Wellington batsman tarried over long in taking the vacant crease. As a matter of fact when he did come in four minutes had elapsed since the fall of the previous wicket.

I was the umpire at the bowler’s end, and the Otago captain approached me with the remark, "I claim this wicket, as the batsman has exceeded his time.” Ary reply was; "Yon cannot have the wicket: all we as umpires can do is to declare the match, as finished, and a win for Otago.” Quiok came the rejoinder; "Garry on, then, we have no dcsiro to get the win that way, hut it is not playing the game all the same.”

After that batsman had. been dismissed during the over then in progress the stumps were drawn. Explanations followed, and the Otagp captain was satisfied that there find been no pointing on the part of the Wellington players. The only player in sight when the fourth wicket fell was the one who went in, and "is general position in the batting order was eleventh. Some of the others had gone home, anticipating that they would not be wanted til] the next day, while others were indulging in liquid refreshments outside the. Basin Reserve, and were not at call.

That the lack of knowledge of ibis rule is not alone confined to Now Zealand players is found in the inrt that the vice-captain of an England team, that toured the Dominion was ignorant of its real meaning. In the match against Wellington a similar iucident happened to the nno I have referred to.

The Englishman, leading his side for the time being, claimed a Wellington player’s wicket for exceeding Iris allotted two minutes, hut lie was told that it ronld not he given him. If ho persisted in. his claim the maieh would ho declared lo he finished. In simple language the ruin means that if at any stage of the march the umpire should call '‘Play.” and there is no striker to carry on. the game automatically ends. It does seem that it- would he a fair thing to penalise the batsman responsible for fho breach of rule, but there .is no provision for doing so. The lapse by the batsman is a breach by the side. “HOW’S THAT:" Law 16 reads: ‘'They (the umpires) shall not order a. batsman out unless appealed to by ihe other side. N. 8.: An appeal “How’s tliaif' covers all ways of being out (within the jurisdiction of the umpire appealed to) unless a specific way of getting out is stated by the person asking.

In a match in which 1 was ofliciatiug many years ago 1 called "over as the ball settled in the wicketkeeper's hands. The batsman, however was on the balance, and eventually be lifted his foot, and an appeal was made for "stumping.” The umpire at the other end, however, disallowed it a? "over” had been called. Naturally an argument started, and, although the matter was referred to me I stated that it was not within m.v jurisdiction as umpire at the howler s end to decide on a matter of stumping,. But the umpire having ended "over” the ball was "dead.”

Law 50 says: "No act on the fielding side can cause a batsman to be out after the umpire lias called Twer,’ but an appeal may be made within the allotted time—i.e., before the delivery of the next ball. But tue appeal, when made, must be regaining something that happened before the umpire called "over.” This, reminds roe of an addition to Law 50: "Nor after any cessation of play,’’ as the result of an experience of Jim Phillips, the old-time international umpire. As the players were coming off the field at the end of one day’s play in a match, in England Phillips said to the bowler; "Wli.V didn’t you appeal for that last hall? I would' have given the batsman out 1.b.w.”

The bowler was wise in bis generation, and said nothing but "Oh!” at the time. The next morning, however, as the players took the field and the batsmen were in their places the bowler made his. appeal. "How's that?” ho said to the umpire, "to the last ball T bowled yesterday. ’

To Phillips’ chagrin and conviction that he had spoken out of his turn ho signalled "out,” and the batsman had to retire. The rule at that stage read: "Such appeal, however, shall not be made after the delivery of the next ball.” Although many hours had elapsed after the previous ball had been howled the appeal was made within the requisite time., The* alteration, "Nor after any cessation ot play or after any adjournment” is in the spirit of fair play. It is as well to point, out that the appeal "How’s that?” covers all ways in which a batsman can be dismissed. And, also, ouce the match has been started the umpires can take no part in the play unless appealed to. The light, may bo bafi, the weather and ground may be cold and wet, the rain may be uncomfortable, but the umpires are forced to carry -on until an appeal has been made. ■ They,cannot oven make a suggestion, although I have been told that umpires, in County matches in Eng-

land do suggest an appeal against the light when they are eager to finish the play on the last day of a gaine so- that they can have more time to get to their next fixture. Some spectators—and players, too — are not aware of the point I au> making here, and are inclinod to blame the umpire when play is carried on under adverse conditions. But the umpires are powerless to change tilings unless they hear a sometimes more than “How’s that?’’ from one of the players. APPEALS TO THE UMPIRE.

Many years ago now an incident which caused- a lot of talk at the time happened in a match between the Wellington, and Midland teams on the Basin Reserve. It referred to Law 47, the making of an appeal to one umpiro after the other umpire had given, the batsman “not- out.” When the appeal was made to me, the umpiro at the bowler’s end, T thought it was for “l.h.w.and answered the appeal in the negative. The captain of the fielding team then submitted his “How’s, that?” to Charlie Stevens, the umpire at the striker’s end, and he gave the batsman—“ Out, hit wicket.” The argument then started. One umpire having given the batsman “not out” should have finished the matter was the main contention of those who considered that the decision was a wrong one. A note to the law says: “When the umpire at the howler’s end has given a batsman ‘not; out’ the other umpire may answer any appeal within his jurisdiction.”'. And this case was in line with the note. “Hit wicket” is a point which can only he decided by the umpire at the striker’s end.

Here's another: A few years ago T took a spell from umpiring in senior matches and for a. few weeks officiated in matches played under file Hoys’ Cricket League. Tn answer to an appeal for canglit at the wicket I gave the batsman “not out.’’ The fielding side then, appealed to the other umpire, and lie promptly gave the batsman '“'out.” The lad was going to leave his crease, but T told him to go on hatting, while I explained to the other umpire that he had no power under the rules to give a batsman “out, caught at the wickets” while be was away from the howler’s end.

At the conclusion of the innings T had a hard job to convince him, as well as the coach of the opposing team. but. having the good fortune to have a rule hook .in niy pocket, T got the satisfaction of being told that they had learnt something fresh about the laws of cricket that afternoon. A reference to the Allan Kippax incident in the second Tost match between England and Australia four years ago may not be out of place here. Tt seems that a hall struck Kippax’s pad, went on, and hit the wicket, but thp umpire at the bowler’s cud had called ''over,” and did not see the happening. No appeal was made to him. hut the Englishmen appealed to tile umpire at square log. and the latter gave Kippax “out..'’

This he had no right to do, as it was not an appeal that came within his jurisdiction. The umpire at the bowler’s end, if he had any doubt about the happening, could have appealed to the man at the other end, and given his decision accordingly. But if he was not prepared to give the batsman : ‘on{” Kippax should not have retired to the pavilion. This, despite the fact that Law -b‘l states that the umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play. Tt is in keeping with the provision of the same rule which says that if the umpire has any doubt about a matter he should give his decision in the haismnn’s favour.

In a North v. South Island match Ned Sale, the brilliant Auckland batsman, mas batting, and the stroke he made mas well held by Jim Taker, a fine Otago batsman fielding at midon. Sale apparently had no doubts about the fairness of the catch, hut when, he got to the pavilion Ernest Upham, Wellington 7 r great homier of the past, said to him, "Did you appeal to the umpire?” r ‘Xo.” said Sale, “'what for?” Ephanr’s reply mas: “It looked uncommonly like a hump ball to me.” And when the innings mas over Upham approached me—T mas the umpire at the bomler’s end—and he found that his conclusion was a right one as far as I mas concerned. Tf Sale bad appealed to me T mould have given him “not out.*' The moral in this is that if the batsman has any douht he should not leave the mieket until the umpire signals that ho is out. As T said just now the umpire cannot do anything without an appeal is made to him either by the batsman or Ihe fieldsmen, nor can he call a batsman back if be comes to retire without a decision being given against him. My advice to the man mitli the bat is to find out definitely every time whether the umpire considers be is 'out* or “not out.” (To be Continued. 1 M.C.O. TOUT?. El NT ERE LIST. The balance of the English team’s fixture list in Australia, is as follows: —Test Mutches.— (To lie played to a finish). January 13 (to-day).—Third, at Adelaide. February 10 —Fourth, at Brisbane. iF'ebmary 23 —Fifth, at Sydney. —Other Fixtures.January 21. to 23—v. Country, at Balmain or Bendigo. January 26 to 30—v. New South Wales. February 1 and 2.—v. Toowoomba. February 4 to B.—Queensland. February IS to 21. — -y. Northern Districts, at Newcastle. March 3 to 7—v. Victoria. March 10 to 14—v. South Australia. After the tour the Englishmen will visit New Zealand and play three matches as follows: March 21 to 22—v. Wellington, at

Wellington. March 24 to 27 —v. Nom Zealand, at

Christchurch. April 1 to 4.—v. New Zealand, at Auckland.

Tns N.O. H.S. Average G. J. Robertson (C.S.) 7 1 145* 84.0 S. Ward (G.) ... .... 4 1 64* 59.6 C. Fraser. (0.) ... 6 0 '129 52.1 •W. Carson. (H.S. ... 9 a 175* 44.8 P. Dow • (€•.) 7 a 132 36.4 E. D. Hosier (T.) . n o 47 OS. 7 B. Scholium (T.) .7 i. 73 33.5 Jt. Nicholson (T.) 10 i 51 28.1 L. Thomson (H.S.) 9 i 55 26.8 M. K. Boon: (C.S.) 8 i 91 26.4 E. James (C.S.) ... 0 90 26.0 K C. Dr.-yer (G.) 9 0 103 25.6 G. Lockett (O.B.) . 10 0 • 122 2546 o. rip. veil ?ir.s.) 5 0 52 25.4 M.' Michael (G.) 9 0 52 19.9 E. D'ow (0:) '( 0 m 19.8 W. Hemp. (0;B.) 9 1 42 1,8.6 O. Frazer (MS.)' ... r* t •n 54 17.1 A. Shelton (T.) 5 l 23 17.0 Y. Norman; (O.B.) 10 .1 50 16.6 B. Halliday (C.S.) 5 0 20 16.4 R. Mace (H.S.) .Q 0 70 16.3 W. Melvin. (O.B. ... 10 3 25* 16.0 M. Robin sop (C.) 7 1 41 15.8 •t. Jennings (T.) 9 2 SO 15,1 N. Lloyd (C.) ... ... 5 2 25* 15.0 G: Clifton (O.B.) 9 0 36 14.0 (I. C. Bow (O.B.) 9 1 55* 13.7 W. Mason (C.S.) ' . 1 a 25 13.5 W. J. Conna-h (C.S.) 0 17 13.1 A. C. Wood field (T.) ... 9 3. 40 12.6 . I. Niven (T.) 0 a 3(7 12.1 G. Caldwell (O.B.) ■S o 57 12.0 C. Brevr (O.B.) S i 30 11.5 J. BlatKwayt (G.) s 0 . so 11.2 W. Bright (H.S.) 6 2 It* n;.2 EL Grant (H.S.) 3 0 32 n.n M- Maude (G.) 8 0 24 11.0 W. F. Morfcon (G.) <3 0 29 10.7 W. Wilson (H.S) 9 0 49 10.7 T>. Wells (T.) 9 0. 21 10.4 A. McAIahon (C.) i 0 33 no.4 J. McGregor (G.) 4 0 23 10.2 Y. Mahoney (C.) 7 0 36 '9.7 J. M. Kay (G.) ... 9 7. oo 9.7 H. B. Turbott (O.B.) 5 2 14* 9.6 G. Stewart (C.) 7 /l 3/6* 8.6 H. F. Forster (G.) 0 0 IS 7.S M- Sharp (H.S.) 7 0 24 7.7 A. Bow (C.) 0 o .10* 7.3 Vf-'Canlton (G.) • 9 ' 1 29*' 7.3 L. Martin (H.S.) 7 o 20* 7.0 J. M. Robertson (Q.H 5 1 13 6.8 A. Binnall (C.S.) 0 0 44 6.3 ’ ,T. Griffiths (C.S.) 0 3 13* r;o H. Jamieson (O.B.) 7 1 1? 4.8 P. Pittar (G.) ' 3 4 6~ 4.2 A'.\ B:-Tiffen (O.B.) ■ 5 1 9* ■f.O H. Ree.d (T.) ' •• • -4 0 10 4.0 - L. Bayliss. (C.) ... 0 0 12 3.8 P. Lockett (T.) • 7 2 13 3.4 W. James' (C.S.) 6 1. 5 2.4 N. Parker-,(T.) ... 7l 1 9* 2:3 O. R. Olsen (T.) 7 1 •5 1.3 ■ EL Moir- (C.S.) ,T. Haisman (C.S.) •5 1 o ,1.3 4: 1 4* 1.3 The following have played fewer than four innings — F. Bennett (C.) ' 2 1 o. 117 66.0 T. Turbitt (CiS.) 2 0 39 25.5 B. Tnrics (H.S.) ... 2 1 17 24.0 E. Bilham (H.S.) O *1 o 60 23.0 R.. Ivors (O.B.) 0 1 18 44.0 M. Stephenson (H.S.) 2 2 8* 14.0 H. Ellis- (C.) 3 0 25 12,6 E. 'Martin (H.S.) 3 0 11 6.J, J. Stokes (H.S.) 2 0 9 5.0 R. Taylor (G.) 9 1 5* 5.0 B. C. Jeffreys (G.) 2 0 5 4.0 T. White' (H.S.) 2 0 S 4.0 E. Bridge (C.) 2 0 4 2.0 R E. Gamhrill (G.) ... ... 1 0 0 — N. Pilcher (C.) 2i 0 0 — W. .Bragg (C-) * denotes. "Not Oat. 5 1 0 0

• _.t> c-4 e» *>1-os-.eij to co uj t> cs t-j o>‘ oi cc eo , ,-4 r' t-i t-4 rrf r-4 1-4 fc> s' e tc P* co -to ■«# -€5? ; »Ti 04 cq rH CQ 04 05 Oj «-^K45CN>25‘ , r' ,;} ' c,: -S? *£>- pdC 1 p00C5CI 3,^rt-O>C4O !—■ t-4 <J4 CO ; 5 ■■ O! w 55 -rf r— 4 CC' 00 CD "C ,C5 :tC 4C ii. .t-4 on Cj. 0? ■ 04 M" c> 40 oT 04 0_

E. Grant (H.SJ ... SO i Ill 8 14.0 ?. i>W (c.f '38 6 144: 10 14.4 G. J. Robertson (C.S.) 82 <5 405 ,26 .15.9 G. Caldwell (O.B.) ... 27 i 140 9 16.5 M. K. Boon (C.S.) ... -3J1 ?» 135 8 16.8 W. Wilson (H.S.) ... 26 i 1 37- ; 8 17.1 J. Jennings (T.j •; 75 6 31S IS 1 7.6 M. SI$arp (H.S.) ... 23 1 169, 9 18.7 J. Griffiths (C.S.) ... m 6 246 - as >18.9 M. Michael (G.) .16 9 70 4 19.7 E. James (O.S.) ,•102 14 375 19 19 < D. Wells (T.) 47 3 201 10 20.1. E. Dow' (C.) 77 10 964 13 20.3 L. Martin (H.S.) 11 — 63 3 24.0 W. F. Morton (G.) ■50 6 108 0 22.0 G. Stewart (C.) 51 2 270 10 27.0 W. James (C.S.) 20 1 121 4 30.2 J. Blathwayt. (G) m R 276 9 30.6 0. Brow (O.B.) ,19 — 06 •1 5)3.0 W. Kemp (O.B.) ■'•20 2 74 3 37.0 0. Flavoll (H.S.) 1R 2 112 3 3?. 3 W. Carson (TT.S.) 58 4, 304 R 3S.0 N. Lloyd (C.) 25 1 ¥10 3 30.0 M. Maude '(G.) 27 4 05 2 47.5 S. Ward (G.) 10 o 50 1 50.0 W. J. Connian (C.S.) 15 1 :ll 8 o 59.0 C. Fraser (C.) 14 1 101 1 101.0 Tho following bowled less than 10 overs J. M. Kav (G.) i — O ■o 1.5 P. Lockett (T.) 6 — 54 5 10.8 B. C. Jeffreys (G.) 4 — 18 i 13.0 A. Dow (0.) 3 — n7 •I 18.5 C. Frazer (H.S.) 6 — 40 2 20.0 T. White (H.S.) 4 -- 22 i 22.0 A. Shelton (T.) 9 — 59 2 29.5 A. McMahon (C.) 4 — 81 1 31.0 V. Mahoney (0.) 7 — 42 1 42.0 P. Dwyer (G.) i — 13 — -- IT. Peed (T.) f 3- — 13 --- •— J. M. Robertson (0.) 2 — 20 — — A. Bignall (O.S.) ... 2 — 23 — —- R. Vieholson (T.) 2 — 24 — --- T;. Bavliss (C.) 3 — 35 —