CRICKET LAWS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 306, 23 November 1934, Page 7

CRICKET LAWS

LEG-THEORY BOWLING. ACTION BY M.C.C. ASSAILED BY CRITICS. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) Received November 23, 10.0 a.m. LONDON, Nov. 22. The Daily Telegraph understands that while there is complete unanimity by the M.C.C. as regards its definition of unfair bowling, serious opposition is raised against throwing the entire onus on the umpires of deciding when the bowler is making a direct attack on the batsman. One prominent member said the ruling would make the position of umpires invidious, untenable, and intolerable.

The Yorkshire Observer says the legtheory and leg-before resolutions were not passed without considerable opposition. Many present regarded the attack on leg-theory as a volte face and a sop to the Australians, as _ Notts was the only county against which the allegations of intimidatory bowling were made in 1934. Marylebone’s reference can apply only to it. A leading authority present said he thought the object could be achieved without such a revolutionary measure. “Many of the leading batsmen, particularly amongst the Australians, adopt a two-eyed-stance, causing bowling at or near the leg-stump to come into line with the body. All too often we have seen such batsmen duck from balls only just over the stumps. Sometimes they are hit. Is the umpire to say which balls are aimed at the batsman and which at the wicket?” The Yorkshire Post editorially says the decisions are the most drastic amendment to the laws for many years. “If the bowlers have been directly attacking the batsmen it is not the game or the laws which are at fault but the players. If such a spirit exists in ijrstclass cricket all the laws it is possible to evolve will not check it. The action taken by the umpires to prevent this type of bowling will be strongly supported by Marylebone. We hope and expect such support will never be necessary, arid that the players are too fond of the game to add further to the burdens of the umpires.” The Yorkshire Post’s cricket correspondent sa}'S: “Surely the captains are the people to decide what tactics are permissible. If they are unable to agree on the standards of sportsmanship it is time first-class cricket ceased to exist.”

A. W. CaiT (captain of Notts) stated: “I am still a confirmed believer in leg-theory when properly operated. It is perfectly legitimate and not dangerous if the bowler is a first-class man like Larwood. When second-raters try it it may become dangerous because of lack of control. Voce will have to bowl as before. I cannot see how it is possible to prevent leg-theory with a lefthander. If the resolution means anything it means a case of ball after ball being short-pitched at the batsman, which is too ridiculous for words.”

Carr asks whether Marylebone are providing umpires with race glasses to watch the pitch of the ball. Lanvood makes no comment. The Star says Marylebone shirked their task of dealing fairly and squarely and finally with the prickly question of leg-theory. “Indeed the rulers give the impression of indulging in a little body-line themselves aimed at men unnamed, but whose names occur immediate to everyone. In justice to Larwood and Voce Marylebone should state the names.”