CRICKET

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21941, 1 May 1933, Page 9

CRICKET

THE CRICKETERS’ ALMANAC

LONDON, April 28,

Mr Southerton has been appointed editor of Wisden’s Cricketers’ Almanac in succession to Mr Stewart Caine.

AN OBJECTIONABLE PRACTICE.

BODY-LINE BOWLING.

LONDON, April 28.

“ It is better to lose a match than lose your opponent’s respect,” writes Mr Jessop in an article in the Scotsman condemning body-line bowling. He urges an early decision against a most objectionable method of attack which is unnecessarily dangerous to limb and life and an intimidation opposed to the spirit of the game and its tradition.

AUSTRALIAN BOARD OF CONTROL.

MELBOURNE, April 29. Sitting until an early hour this morning, the Board of Control decided oh action to prevent body-line bowling in Australian cricket, and has asked the Marylebone Club to take similar action. Messrs Hartigan, Noble, Woodfull, and Richardson, who were appointed to consider the question, submitted the following recommendation as an addition to the laws of cricket:—

"Any ball delivered which, in the opinion of the umpire, is bowled at the batsman with intent to intimidate or injure him, shall be considered unfair, and ‘no ball ’ shall be called and the bowler notified of the reason. If the offence is repeated by the same howler in the same innings he shall immediately be instructed by the umpire to cease bowling and the over shall be regarded as completed. Such bowler shall not again be permitted to bowl during the course of the innings then in progress,” The hoard resolved to accept the report, and decided to send a copy of the new Australian law by cable to the Marylebone Club, with the request that it be considered by that body with the object of its application to all cricket. NEW RULE CRITICISED. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT. LONDON, April 29, (Received April 30, at 6.80 p.m.) The Daily Telegraph, commenting on the Board of Control’s body-line decision says that if the rule becomes law the umpire would have power to direct a fast bowler how he must place his field, and how he must bowl under pain of being prevented from bowling at all. 111-feeling might be engendered if a dictatorial umpire were in charge of the wicket 'at‘which a temperamental fast bowler was operating, and this might be far worse than the ill-feeling that arose over Larwood’S bowling. It would be far better to draw a couple of chalk lines to show where the ball may not be pitched but better still to . get to the root of the trouble by amending the Ibw rule. Tlie Morning Post’s cricket Writer asks, How is an umpire to decide whether a bowler intends to intimidate or injure a batsman? Furthermore, a bowler within the laws of cricket is entitled to intimidate. It must be remembered that the ball which intimidates one batsman is not a source of terror to another.