CRICKET CONTROL

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 82, 5 March 1938, Page 10

CRICKET CONTROL

SUSPENSION OF PLAYER. FURTHER DISCUSSION. Further consideration was given the suspension of the United Cricket Club player, K. Ollivcr, at a meeting of the Manawatu Cricket Association’s management committee, last evening, following tile receipt of a letter from the club stating that a letter sent to the Umpires’ Association and signed by Olliver was regarded as a letter from the club, and not from the individual. It was intimated by the secretary of the United Club (Mr J. Gallichan), who is a member of the association’s management committee, that the four United Club teams, one in each grade, would refrain from taking part in Manawatu cricket until such time as the suspension was removed. Those present were Messrs A. M. Ongley (chairman), H.. Von Stunner, J. R.' Hardie, AY. H. Wilson, E. J. Worry, R. S. Warwick, D. Jones, G. Griggs, J. Gallichan and R. A. Brace (secretary). UNITED CLUB’S LETTER. The United Club’s letter, which was dated March 3, was as follows: “I am instructed to advise you that an urgent meeting of my executive was held last evening in order to discuss the developments of recent disputes in which my club became involved. One subject discussed at length was the suspension of K. Olliver, our senior captain. It was the unanimous and wholehearted opinion of the meeting that this suspension constituted an injustice to the gentleman concerned in that, having associated ourselves with, and given our endorsement to, his letter to the Umpires’ Association, thus making it a club letter —Olliver was only the signatory to it and was acting on behalf of this club, to single him out alone for suspension was an injustice. We reaffirm our unanimous endorsement of his letter and advise that the following resolution was passed, without dissent, at our meeting last evening: ‘That an immediate letter be written to the association advising it that in our opinion it has made an error in suspending one player of the club. K. Olliver, when the matter of bis letter is. and has been, since the special meeting of our committee held at 6 p.m. on February 14. a club one, according to the verbal advice made to the association (on the night the decision to associate ourselves with the letter was arrived at), confirmation of which appeared in the Press on the day after the meeting of the association’s committee. Further, we request that, because of this, the suspension of K. Olliver be immediately lifted to enable him to continue with the match in which he is at present engaged? We ask for your immediate decision on this matter and trust that you will be able to favour us with your earliest possible reply.” Following the receipt of the letter, the secretary had communicated with him, said the chairman, and he had decided that as the writers asked for an. immediate reply the best thing to do was to call the committee together, not that the letter, in the speaker’s opinion, had any merit in it. It was just as illogical as some of the other matters that had come forward. Tho claim that the letter had the approval of some of the others in the club did hot carry the subject further. Personally he was very strongly of the opinion that no action should be taken. When the decision as to suspension had been made, apart from the representatives of one club, the committee had been unanimous. Replying to Mr Hardie, Mr Ongley outlined developments arising from Olliver’s refusal to leave the crease when given out, the writing of a letter by that player to the Umpires’ Association, the association’s demand for an apology for remarks in the letter and Olliver’s refusal, and then the decision that he be suspended. The first letter, said Mr Ongley, had come from Olliver himself, the club later holding a meeting and deciding to support it. Mr Gallichan said the club members did not think it fair that Olliver should be suspended, as they considered the letter was a club letter. ; Mr Ongley: If that is the position, and the club take up that attitude, we regret it, but there it is. Mr Werry: If it was a club letter it should have come from the club secretary, not from anybody else. Mr W. H. Wilson said the point about Olliver’s not leaving the wickets had been dealt with and finished with by the committee. He had been suspended on account of the letter. It had not gone through the controlling body of cricket, but direct to the Umpires’ Association. Mr Ongley commented that an Umpires’ Association could not * be kept together if that was allowed to go on.

The real point, said Air Warwick, was whether the letter came from Olliver, or from the club. The letter had been read over to the committee of the United Club, said Mr Gallichan. They had decided to associate themselves with it. In the first place .Air E. Tottman (an umpire referred to) had read the letter to the association’s committee, commenting as he did so. On account of those comments the letter had seemed far worse than it was. Personally he had been surprised, on reading the letter afterwards, that he had formed the opinion he had on hearing Air Tottman read it. The club committee (all but. one being present) endorsed every paragraph of it. Air Wilson : Did von realise that the letter should have come to the association ?

Mr Gallichan : 1 grant that it was a bit out of place. Mr Wilson : Do you realise that in associating itself as a club with such a letter the club is laying itself open to suspension ? Mr Gallichan: We quite realise that. THE CLUB’S ATTITUDE. Mr Warwick: AVould the club apologise ? Mr Gallichan : The club will definitely not apologise. Mr Jones: That letter was purely a personal letter. It does not matter what the club did afterwards. Mr Gallichan: I have stated the opinion of the club members. We have seen them, meeting them in town, and I will not say any more about it. Mr Jones: The opinion of your executive ?

Mr Gallichan: No. My club. Mr Ongley moved that the letter lie received and no action taken. Mr Von Stunner seconded tlie motion, no amendment was proposed, and the motion was carried. Mr Gallichan being the only dissentient. Mr Gallichan: I would like to say ttiat I am sorry that you have not given us more favourable consideration.

Mr Ongley: We could not. You as a club have a responsibility; so have we.

Mr Gallichan said it was the opinion of United Club members that they should'take the matter further. They believed in what they claimed —lock, stock and barrel. Further (although the general meeting of the club had not been held, and lie really had not the authority of such a meeting to say

so) many members of the club had been spoken to, and the United Club intended to withdraw their teams from the association's competitions until such time as the suspension on the captain was removed.