“BODYLINE” BOWLING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21979, 14 June 1933, Page 7

“BODYLINE” BOWLING

A MISLEADING TERM MARYLEBONE CLUB’S OPINION OBJECTION TO BARRACKING (United Press Association.) x (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, June 12. The Marylebone Club, in a 700 words.* cable message in reply to the Board of Control, says that it has carefully considered the faoard ? s cablegram of April 28, and also the reports of the English captain and managers. It adds; “We consider the term ‘ bodyline ’ bowling misleading and improper. It has led to much inaccuracy of thought by confusing the short, bumping ball, whether directed at the off, middle, or leg stump, with what is known as leg theory. The term ‘ bodyline ’ would appear to imply direct attack by the bowler on the batsmen. The committee considers such an implication, applied to any English bowler in Australia, improper and incorrect. Such action on the part of any bowler would be an offence against the spirit of the game, and would be immediately condemned. “ The practice of bowling on the leg stump, with the field placed on the leg side, as is necessary for such bowling, is legitimate, and has been in force for many years. It was. generally referred to as leg theory. The present habit of batsmen of moving in front of the wicket with the object of gliding straight balls to leg tends to give the impression that a bowler is bowling at the batsman, especially in the case of a fast bowler, when the batsman mistimes the ball and is hit.

“ The new law recommended by the board does not appear to the committee to be practicable. First, it would place an impossible task m the umpire; secondly, ,it would place in the hands of the umpire a power over the game more than dangerous, which any umpire might well fear to exercise. The committee has had no reason to give special attention to leg theory as practised by fast bowlers. “ The committee will watch carefully during the present season for anything which can be regarded as unfair or prejudicial to the best interests of the game, and proposes to invite opinions and suggestions from the county clubs’ captains at the end of the season with a view to expressing an opinion at the special meeting of the Imperial Cricket Conference. “Regarding the report of the captain and managers, the committee, while deeply appreciative of the private and public hospitality shown the Englishmen, is much concerned about the barracking which is referred to in all the reports and of which there was unanimous deprecation. Barracking is, unfortunately, always indulged in by spectators in Australia to a degree unknown in England. During the late tour it would appear, to have exceeded previous experience, occasionally being thoroughly objectionable. There appears to have been little or no effort on the p'art of those responsible for the administration of the game in Australia to interfere or control the exhibition. The team naturally regarded this as a serious lack of consideration to them. “ The committee is of opinion that cricket, played under such conditions, is robbed of much of its value as a game. Unless barracking in Australia is stopped or greatly moderated, it is difficult to see how a continuance of representative matches can serve the best interests of the game. “ The committee regrets that these matters are dealt with by correspondence instead of at a personal conference. If duly accredited representatives of Australian cricket would confer with the committee they would be welcomed Dy Marylebone.” REPORT CONSIDERED HELPFUL. LONDON, June 12. A prominent member of the M. 0.0. told a representative of the Sun Service that the sub-committee’s report on bodyline bowling would prove helpful in overcoming the trouble. OPINION IN AUSTRALIA DISAPPOINTMENT EXPRESSED. SYDNEY, June 13. (Received June 13, at 11.5 p.m.) Official cricket circles in Australia declare that the Marylebone Club’s report leaves the position precisely where it was a month ago and, indeed, rather aggravates it. The Sun cricket writer, A. Moyes, says that the report emphasises the necessity for sending a delegation to England. Bradman agrees with this vieA and expresses the opinion that Woddfull is the very man for the.job as he has had practical experience of “bodyline” bowling. s x \ Bradman adds that the Marylebone Club is clouding the issue with a complaint about “barracking” and asks: “How is anybody going to stop angry protests from an infuriated crowd of 50,000 onlookers whose grievance is mainly against intimidatory bowling? If the M.G.C. wants to stop the tests on the ground of “ barracking ” how much more necessary is it to stop them until dangerous bowling tactics are controlled? That is the question for our Board of Control to answer.”

Bradman’s views are shared by leading officials here, in Victoria, and in South Australia. Members of the Board of Control are surprised at the Marylebone Club making the report public before submitting it to the Australian Board. Two members of the board express frank disappointment with its contents.