BODY-LINE CONTROVERSY

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 17 January 1935, Page 5

BODY-LINE CONTROVERSY

Notts Club Members Vote No Confidence in Committee REPORTS ON VOCE’S BOWLING I SUPPORTED BY UMPIRES (United Press Association—By Eleotrio Telegraph Copyright). Received 1.30 p.m. to-day. LONDON, Jan. IG. “They were two dreadful overs; they constituted a direct attack against the* batsmen.” Thus the umpires in the Australia-Nottingliam match reported on Voce’s two overs on Monday evening, but despite this a bitter meeting of the Notts club, by a show of hands, overwhelmingly carried a vote of nc confidence in the committee. At least 12000 out of 3000 members packed the Albert Hall, Nottingham’s largest public building. A special staff of doorkeepers kept them in queues and scrutinised admission cards. The committee’s report stated that three formal complaints of “‘direct attack” bowling were received, the first from Lancashire, with whom the umpires disagreed, then from Australia and Middlesex.' Both the latter complaints the umpires declared were justified, hut apart from these formal protests the committee knew that great dissatisfaction at some of the Notts’ bowling existed in several counties. The Nottinghamshire public, which apparently believed the controversy was with Australia alone, had no idea of the widespread nature of the complaints, and leading cricketers throughout England during the Trent Bridge test had freely stated that action against Notts was contemplated bv many counties. ‘The committee had refused to act on Lancashire’s complaint, because the umpires had not upheld it. Then came the Australian match. Voce had howled magnificently on the first day, hut two entirely different overs before the stoppage owing to the had' light on the Monday, had mostly consisted of short, bumpy balls flying at the batsincurs heads and shoulders. j\lr Bushby and Mr Bull immediately after stumps protested against these two overs. The umpires were interviewed and tliev had reported as above. Later Marylebone had forwarded a eopv of a letter from Mr Busliby stating that Voce on several instances hadadopted tactics similar to those era-' ployed in Australia to which exception had been taken. The letter added: “It is understood that you were a party to the agreement under which we came to England. Voce’s bowling is certainly mtimidatorv and a direct attack on our batsmen.” The Notts committee had chon decided that the only course was to apologise. Then, on October 6. Middlesex had written declaring that “Voce’s bowling in the Lord’s match was sometimes obviously a direct attack on the batsman.” One umpire in this match, m a written report, declared: “Mv opinion is without fear or favour, that A oce s bowling is unfair.” The committee again had no option but to apologise. The report added that the key to the situation as to the captaincy and the decision to drop Carr was justmed by Carr’s recent statements to the lress. His statements that Voce’s bowling was not unfair showed that trouble was practically certain to recur under a captain whose view of fair bowling so far differed from that of firstclass umpires and many leading ej ic-, keters, while his statement, 1 would never restrain my bowlers from bowlin <r as they think fit,” proved that Carr failed' to appreciate one of the chief responsibilities of a captain, namely, the team’s conduct on the field. tt j. The chairman, Alderman Huntsman, ruled out of order a motion demanding the committee’s resignation and expunging Nott’s apology from the club minutes, after which IV. H li-tty moved a vote of no confidence. Mr A. C. Adams, seconding the motion. said that Voce’s bowling against Australia and Middlesex was abc\e suspicion. . Carr declared: “I do not mind being dropped. If the committee want me at any time next year, I am at their disposal, but I am here to support. Bill Voce. I swear that neither Larwood nor Voce ever bowl at a man. After Voce took eight- wickets in the Australian match Mr. Busliby asked a Notts committeeman ‘Haven’t you any control over your bowlers?’ The Australians were determined to get Voce by fair or foul means. They succeeded. Those two overs \\ere bcwled according to INlarylebone 1 ules. Another speaker said that when Lilley was in the pavilion he wished Fleetwood-Smith good-morning. He did not reply: “I told Lilley 1 did ■lot think anvbodv could be so ungentlemanly. Li'lley replied, ‘They are all like that.’ ” , , The speaker added: “I heard .Kippax say to Voce, ‘Hew many are you going to lame to-dav?’ ” A show of hands demonstrated an over two to one majority in favour of the motion. VOCE’S WITHDRAWAL Discussion also centred round Voce’s withdrawal from the match. Dr. Gould, the honorary secretary, was jeered when he declared that Liiiey had informed him on the Tuesday morning that Voce was not really sound. “I examined Voce, who complained of pain in both shins, while pressure over the lower half of the tibia caused wincing,” he added. “Rest was the only treatment, so 1 asked \ oee to stand down.” Mr Whitby read a document, signed by Voce, as follow: “I hereby declare that I am fit and willing to play. Any statement to the contrary is untrui. “Woodful secured what lie wanted, namely, ail apology. I oce came to the ground ready to play—ask his Missus,’ declared Mr AN hitby. A prominent committeeman declared that the committee would probably not wait until the annual meeting, but would resign immediately en bloc. The committees report made it clear that it did not reflect on Larwood’s bowling.