“STOP SQUEALING”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26352, 6 January 1947, Page 5

“STOP SQUEALING”

TEST UMPIRING ENGLISH WRITERS’ COMMENTS (Rec. 0.30 a.m.) LONDON, Jan. 5. “ Stop squealing and get on with the test,” as the Sunday Pictorial headlines its review, gqmmarises the attitude of several London Sunday papers on the Australian umpiring controversy. Saying that he wag sick and tired of the question, the sports editor of the Sunday Pictorial reminds the public that Hammond and Bradman have a right to object to any umpire on reasonable grounds, but umpires Scott and Borwick have officiated in all three tests so far. The News of the World,*in a leading article, says, “Let us hope that the criticism of the umpiring in the test will go no farther. There is more behind the visit of our men than winning matches, even though we may undertake a quest for the Ashes as 'a sacred mission. Reports from down under show that Britain’s representatives have never been more popular off and on the field. If we lose, good luck to the Australians. We shall be waiting for them next time.” The protest followed the cabled report of Harold Dale, writing from Melbourne to the Daily Express, who said that "Edrich was not out and Compton was not out—yet they were given out.” He added that the cricket in the third day of the test was rendered morally null and void. “ The scores are fictitious and the ultimate result probably meaningless,” he said. “These things are hard to write, but I do so after careful thought and after having been fortified by the opinions of eminent Australian cricketers who are in a position to know the truth.” Dale, detailing the fate of both batsmen, said: “There are world-famous witnesses who say they heard the ball meet Edrich’s bat and there is the bat itself which bears a mark honestly claimed to have been made by the ball—yet Edrich was given out legbefore. Compton, after scoring 11, allowed a ball from Toshack to break in from the leg and strike his pads. He was momentarily aghast when given out. "The effect of these, decisions goes deeper than the return of the batsmen to the pavilion—the morale of the whole side is shaken. They know not whom to fear most—the bowler or the umpire.”