AN INTERESTING POINT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 24 March 1923, Page 3

AN INTERESTING POINT.

*g\ Xa incident in a Shield match in' Melbourne lias given rise to a lot of cbonaent-and is worth noting, and -will jffovevinteresting to followers of the f ft in the Australasian, jpgpsr'*?Arid while on the subject of tht; jmatehv between Carlton and St. Kilda, *'%n jn^ident in the first day's play that puzzled all the flayers in the «»at^ -The umpires were R. Crockett ,a»& r J.lßiithardji; and Wat&on, vjKo has .^U»-habit-of running in front of the omjplre^ Appealed for a catch behind Sutherland, of Oarlton. The leg .side was unmistakably to* hat, and splendidly taken '-JgrfMtthHfL m*^m the bowler obscured o&^&£R£&sE&^y*itlt "^as «»able praetio^^onc. Jfk* St. Kilda t s:hen:T'iyOT»^ v H>d-'I'to the umpire at

"-that.they had no power to do so, that authority being vested in Turn. It was a veritable facer to the players, who had been acting on that assumption all their cricketing lives. I have been interviewed on the matter by a section of those interested, wanting to know exactly the position. There is no doubt that the laws require revision, and it-would be a good thing if the Board of Control''would consult with Marylebone with that object in view. Law '47, bearing on the subject, reads as follows: "The umpire at the bowl-der's.-wicket''shall be appealed to before the other umpire in all cases, except in those of stumping, hit wicket, or run out at the striker's wicket, or arising. ou# of law 42, but in any case in which an umpire is unable to give a decision he shall appeal to the other umpire, whose decision shall be final.'' Law 42 iB in reference to the wicket-keeper taking the ball before the wieftet or by incommoding the batsmen by any noise, etc. It will be 'seen that Crockett is right in his contention that lie was the only authorised person to appeal to the other umpire. But the \ law says /'fie (the umpire) when un-j able to give a decision shall appeal to the other umpire, " and according to that if it be an lbw appeal, which the umpire at the bowler's end cannot see through the bowler getting in his way, the assistance of the other umpire ,at short leg should be requisitioned. The thing is absurd. The way out of the difficulty, of course, is for an umpire to give a "not out" decision really when he cannot give one owing to circumstances as related. I spoke to Crockett in reference to the incident, and he maintained that in catches at the wicket and" lbw appeals it is useless to appeal to the other umpire. Arid there can be no gainsaying the, fact. It will thus plainly be seen that law 47 is slightly deficient." Such ah occurrence might easily take place in' any match, and players and umpires should note the comment by a leading authority-