“It Is Not Cricket”

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7294, 2 August 1930, Page 15

“It Is Not Cricket”

TRADITIONS NOT PRESERVED 4 _____ Disquieting Incidents of Late *IT is not cricket” has for generations been a saying, indieI ating that some' action is not quite what it ought to be, ' and we have been accustomed to look on cricket as the personification of all that is fair and upright in sport. With the commercialising of erieket, however, there is a feelijig that the traditions of the game are not being preserved, that the fine sporting spirit which once attended it is in danger of being lost, says a writer in the “Australasian” (Melbourne).

There have been several disquieting incidents in the last few years, he continues. . We have seen playepb resenting, if not openly disputing, the decision of the umpire; we have noticed the tendency of certain players to indicate to the crowd that the umpire had made a mistake; we have seen "the closure” applied in circumstances which could only have as their object the placing of the opposing side at a distinct disadvantage; we have seen a game suspended at a critical moment, when bowlers and fieldsmen seemed rattled, by a captain calling for refreshments —not that they were required, but with the object of giving his men an opportunity of pulling themselves together and, conversely, of deterring the batsmen from their purpose by causing a break in the game. If these things were done by junior teams they would be de- =;“ nounced on all sides, but when they occur in test matches, in games between representative elevens, it is not to be wondered at that tho veterans shake their heads and ask, “Is this cricket?” Two instances of what is decidedly “cricket” may be quoted as illustrations. In January. 1912, in the test match on the Melbourne ground. W. J. Whitty was apparently bowled bv S. F Barnes, and. as his was the last wicket, the fieldsmen began to walk to the pavilion. The English wicket-keeper. E. J. Smith, however, knew that the ball had come back off his pads, and told the umpire so. with the result that Whitty resumed his innings. The other incident refers to the question of appeals for light. In the test match at Nottingham in ISOS Australia was

fighting against a heavy score. Nine wickets were down an hour before die time fixed for drawing of stumps. C. E. McLeod and J. J. Kelly were the batsmen, and the light was bad. J. Darling, the Australian captain, instructed his men on no account to appeal because of the light. After a quarter of an hour McLeod appealed to Darling, but the captain said “Play on,” and in the semi-darkness Australia was defeated, but her honour and her reputation were enhanced. It is hardly to be believed that In a match between the Australians and a county eleven it could be possible for a batsman to be allowed to leave his crease believing he was out on hearing a fieldsman call, “Well caught,” when it was apparent that he had not been caught; but we are assured that this was the case. It is equally hard to credit that on an English ground in a test match English batsmen could be hooted for what the spectators, the majority of whom were English supporters. regarded as unfair tactics. That there should have been the most scathing criticism of these tactics by leading writers and former international players is proof that the spectators at Ileadingley in the third test match were justified in their resentment of the vexatious and unnecessary appeals on account of light. It speaks well for the sporting spirit of the crowd and the courage of the critics that they should have denounced what they regarded as unfair. There is so much that Is admirable, there has: been such long immunity from scandal in cricket, that when these things do occur it is well to direct attention to them, with the object of correcting them and of seeing to it that they are not allowed to be repeated.