CRICKET UMPIRES

Taranaki Daily News, 13 April 1935, Page 17 (Supplement)

CRICKET UMPIRES

> DISCUSSION OF THE RULES. r i DIFFICULTY OVER NO-BALLING. The difficulty in deciding whether the „ umpire at square leg had any right to ' no-ball a bowler for faulty footwork ’ was . discussed at the meeting of the North Taranaki Umpires’ Association on ’ Thursday night. Mr. J. Brown presided ' over an attendance of nine members. It ' was decided that the secretary write to ' the Umpires’ Associations at both Sydney and Melbourne for a ruling on the point. Rule 11 discussed the no-balling of a bowler for not having one foot grounded behind the crease and in a footnote said that the. umpire concerned was the umpire at the bowler’s end, said Mr. C. O. Berg. It did not call such a faulty practice an unfair delivery. It had been maintained, he said, that rule 48, which said either umpire could call noball if satisfied the delivery was unfair, allowed the umpire at square leg to • take action. Mr. P. S. Carroll said that if in an umpire’s opinion dragging or lifting the foot was unfair no-ball should be called.

The question was not as to rights of the umpire but as to interpretation of the words “unfair delivery.” To reach finality the matter should be submitted to an authority, it was agreed, and a motion was passed to that effect. Players were allowed too much latitude at New Plymouth and the umpires should be more strict in ruling a noball, said Mr. Carroll, who added that it - would- be better for the game if the bowlers were forced to comply closely with the rules. The cricket association should be asked to fix a definite time for the drawing , of stumps, and no. match should be played beyond that time, said Mr. A. Ramshaw. With the possibility of extension the teams were not punctual. Perhaps a few claims for matches because of lateness would help, said Mr. • ' Carroll. Mr. Ramshaw complained that at times ; • when play was carried on beyond the time players were relieved but. the umpires had to stay. He also wanted to know if the association considered umpire obliged' to stay when as far aV •competition points were concerned the match was completed but the; teams wished to continue for ’ practice.-Mem-bers thought he would be under no obligation to stay.