CRICKET.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 234, 6 November 1914, Page 2

CRICKET.

NOTES OF THE WEEK. THE IRONY OF FATE. Some well-deserved bouquets were thrown at Canterbury cricket and the authorities controlling the game in this province, by various speakers at the New Zealand Ork'ket' Council's Annual meeting .last Saturday evening. Also, the president (Mr E. Heathcote Williams) made some admirable, references to. the high • ideals; of cricket.. It is because those ideals have been kept before the cricketers of the province that Canterbury has reached its Jiigh position in New Zealand cricket.

Now for the irony of fate. Two days after the New Zealand Cricket Council's meeting, two days after those nice things had been said about Canterbury cricket, the chairman of the Canterbury Association's Managing Committee, led by the hon. treasurer, threw—metaphorically speaking—a hefty half-brick at the ideals of cricket. The opportunity for this attack was provided by the City and Suburban Association seeking to arrange representative matches against the Canterbury Association for December; 16 (Anniversary.Day). The treasurer, Mr R.i'B. Ward,"led off the iattack by bitterly opposing any arrangement of: matches with an organisation not' a,lfiliat<?d with the Canterbury Association or with the New Zealand Cricket Council.' The other members of the committee, except the:chairman: (Mr A. Cant), did: not take, much stock in this affiliation argument, but Mr Ward was so keen on the point that when the matter was put to the vote he. asked that his vote in opposition to the proposal should be recorded in- the minutes.

.DEMOCRACY NOT WANTED! , Mr. Ward's attitude, ' however, was not so unsportsmanlike as the chairman 's. During the discussion Mr Cant intimated that' he considered- it was infra dig. to play, patches. with men who paid only five shillings apiece in club subscription for the season, and. who played. on, rough paddocks! How's that, umpire f. ... ; Fortunately, the majority of the members'9'f the committee showed that they do not leave their sporting spirijfc'on the blaying-field. Th'ey decided to' play the matches ]aske'd''foV ,'With ;the,,.'dif». fctfeiicc' that : a ''junibr "eleven is .to meet the City aiid Suburbaii Association's Senior teairi, a third the City anicl Subtirba.n junior, .reprißsehtsitives. ajid a 'foiirtli-grade learn. tlie' SubuTbau thir'd'-grade eleveij. O'Ae 'committeeman, Mr W. . Sirnpson, \stroiigly urged tliat the Canterbury first. Eleven ?hould meet the City and Suburban AsSociation's senior' tcarii, ( ,aiid tli&t , the other opposing teams should' also be of similar grading. Mr Simpson-remark- , ed that at its present rate of progress the City and Suburban Association is likely to reach' such a standing soon that it will not need to appiy'to the Association for matches — Vi the latter; •|he position makevtjhe applications. As far.&s niimericaifsjfcfength is concerned, the younger association is already leyel wjth, the Canterbury Association — r eftch has .39 teams under., its control. However, the majority,of the committeemen decided that the Suburban Association's teams iVshould "prove- themselves" M ys • .are placed on the same plane as the other body's teams -in these majfcetieSvV:

>••• - RACING AND CRICKET, The question whether competition matches should be played on New Zealand Cup. Day was discussed at some little length ait this" week's meeting of -the Managing Committee of the Canterbury Cricket Association. It was raised by Mr W. L. King asking whether the junior games should be postponed. He contended that they should not be post-, poned, and ..that there was no reason in depriving at least 75 per cent, of the association's players of their afternoon 's cricket, just because the other 25 per cent.—at the most—wished to go to the races. Many junior players, he said, had expressed a desire to play tomorrow. And, when the matter is considered dispassionately, there is no answer to Mr King's contention. The decision not to play any games to-mor-row but that between the representative eleven and the "colts" bears hardly upon the majority of the junior players, and also upon-those senior cricketers who do not "go a-racing. - • Mr King was well Supported by Mi* W. Simpson, who -also Cdesired to know why any games at all should be postponed. Mr Simpson-made a good point when lie stressed the fact, that in the ordinary course of events a new series of would-be started to-morrow. He pointed'oiiiE that not all, of those cricketers who will go to the races to-morrow will also go on the following Saturda}\ Therefore the|teams would be in the same position oil-both Saturdays, and this would-be fair to all. On the other hand, if no games were played to-morrow, but were started on the following Saturday, some of the teams would be.short on the first, day, and at full strength on the following Saturday. However, Messrs King and Simpson were in a minority of two, arid the committee decided uot to play any competition matches to-morrow. Mr Ward stated that the experiment of playing on Cup Day had been tried once, but. had not succeeded. ,He did .not • say, however, in what way it ■..ditt; npt &ueceecl. The principal 'argument, put forward liy f the majority was that .it • was cust6mary\t,o refraiia from'playing cbmpetitioii niatciies oU Cup*>l)ay; \\. Good old tradition! J ; . : '. * , \ 'A -THE COUNCIL MEETING.

The Sun lias its pleasure at this fact that [peace has been restored in the New Zealandf v Cricket CquacH, and. has commented u£pn the 'cbutieilate afinuaL mQetirig.^-Therefore, it is nst thei-prese&t intension to

review the proceedings of last Saturday evening. But a few remarks on certain points which arose during the meeting should not be out of place. It was quite evident that the visiting delegates were imbued with a sincere desire to remedy the position which had arisen, without shifting the Council's headquarters. Obviously, too, was there sincerity in their statements that they had no desire to see the members of last year's Management Committee remaining out of office, and that they had no quarrel with the members of that committee, personally. It was apparent that while the principal local associations considered that that committee had made a mistake in making 1 a daily monetary allowance to every member of the New Zealand team which visited Australia last season, they did not expect the committee to be infallible, and their criticism of that mistake was not intended to indicate any lack of confidence in the committee.

While the visiting delegates entertained these kindly fbeliugs towards the retiring committee, two of them, quite justifiably, wished to provide a safeguard against a recurrence of the mistake made by the committee. They wished to place on record a statement that the council did not agree with the committee's interpretation of rule 19.' However, this motion was blocked because the' president would not accept it unless the interpretation referred to was set out in it, and a copy of the circular letter in which the executive stated its interpretation was not available at the meeting: Earlier in the meeting, the president had suggested that Mr. C. llay's (Auckland) only alternative to taking his chance of being allowed to put his motion, was to gjfet someone to move the deletion, from the committee's annual report, of the paragraph relating to the payment of'players.; Mr. Wylde Brown, Auckland's" resident delegate, did move that at Mr. Hay's instigation, but it was withdrawn later. It should be explained, however, that Mr Hay had no real intention of endeavouring to have the paragraph excised, but merely wished to have the opportunity of speaking a-second ' time in the discussion on the report and trying to clear-up some misapprehension .of Auckland's attitude toward- rule ID. The present: writter happened to hear Mr Hay, when asking Mr Brown to move that' the paragraph be deleted from- the report, remark this amendment •to the - motion for adoption of tire r.ejTort could be withdrawn as soon as it had served its purpose.'

l A RIDICULOUS RULE: ' ! The discussion on the quest VithQU,t .its effect, as the ,(Mr Heathcote Williams) , expressed hppe that the. incoming, consider' rule 19 j and, - ' if necessary, have ,i$ re-drafted, so that ifc could he amended Williams, considered the to. be ambiguous. It is rather of that nature, but the most curious thing about the meeting is' that none of the delegates pointed out the original cause of all the bother. As a matter of faet, the council as ia whole must take the blame for the weakness in the rules.

Now, rule 19 says: "Claims madefy players for loss of wages or other expenses incurred in connection with the council's- matches / must Tae- certified -to by the secretary of, their respective association." The construction of that rule is slip-shod indeed, and the rule is not even couched in good English. Whoever heard of a player claiming that lie should lose his wages or be put to other expenses in'connection with the council's matches? Yet the rule says that if a player does make such a claim, it must be certified : to by the secretary of his association. Of course, what the council by; the rule,; was tTfa£ if Jf suffers, loss of wages or Qthetf; connection with one of- tlie;,eQuncils'sJ|natches he-should attach to any claim for compensation for such loss of wages or expense a certificate, from the secretary of the association under whose control he plays, showing that he has suffered such loss of or expense. In any case, how could the council or its executive enforce rule 19? How could it force any player who makes such a claim to attach a certificate? What the rule was intended to provide, no doubt, was that no such claim should be approved by the council or. its executive unless a certificate of the nature already mentioned - aeConipanied the claim. '

But the greatest weakness of the rule is that although it is intended to provide that-such a certificate should accompany a claim, there is nothing in the rules of the council empowering the council or its Managing Committee to compensate players for loss of wages or for other expenses. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that rule 19 is good as it stands, another rule authorising such payments is required. That ■point does not seem to have occurred to any of the delegates to- the council. The president goir nearest he" remarked that rule 19 is ambiguous. Clearly, then, the solicitor who informedwthe Managing Committee that rule 19 (empowered it to make payments to players was in error, and the Managing Committee, thus misled, did ..something it had no right to do. The legal opinion obtained by the Auckland association,to the ejffect that rule 19 did not bear the interpretation placed Upon it by the council's executive, was correct. But the Auckland association was wrong in concluding that the rule did not require alteration. The rule certainly should He revised at the earliest opportunity. Even if rule 19 were good, and bore the interpretation arrived at by the retiring executive, why did not that body carry it out, and obtain the certificates required? It is quite apparent that.the; executive made .a and it -.was; over-sensitive when, it encountered some criticism consequence of that mistake. It was riot expected to be infallible. However, it is pleasing that bine member of the retiring executive lias been- induced,"to return to offfce. Tne Managing Committee Qf the counqiljseemjs to be a strong one.-

j; j ; SQUARE-CUTS. ; ;The Palmerston North High School ipi-considering the question of entering th'cf Williams Shield competition. f : ■ ' '•*« f i ■ 'i~'

! Mcßeth,. " Sydenham *' £,'& new libfrler, had remarkably good figures in tliat team's match with Kaiapoi. In Kstiapoi's two innings he took nine •*yi|.kets for 35 runs. I !lt was rather a coincidence that in t'K<| nineteenth its e£fstsnce of thftNcwr Zealand Ciiclfiet <ioi£i& qili was disturbed t>y trouble over nuniiMi 19 of tlife' rulfss. f .. ;■>. f I :3?he election (of Mr .J. J. 'Olaric, i)resj|idelt of the Otk^o'-Wicket *&sbciali<fof, ! 4 president of the New Zealand Cricket ' I •