“EVASIVE REPLY”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19628, 24 October 1933, Page 14

“EVASIVE REPLY”

AUSTRALIAN VIEW OF M.C.C. STATEMMENT. MELBOURNE, October 12. At least two of the Victorian representatives cn the Board of Control (Mr W. L. Kelly and Dr. Ramsay Mailer), regard the M.C.C. cable concerning “bodyllne" as “concillary but evasive.” The two Queensland members (Messrs Hartigan and Hutcheon) hold similar views. There Is rapidly growing disappointment at the M.C.C. attitude. In cricket sircles the feeling is that the M.C.C. has deliberately evaded the Issue, and the next Australian Test team. If It sails, may have to face bodyline. Larwood’s assertion that he will not give up leg-theory bowling, with a packed leg trap, makes this extremely probable.

Larwood boasts that the M.C.C. Is not likely to stop him. That Is significant, for Larwood, being on the spot, is well In touch with cricket politics in England, and must have a shrewd idea of what Is In the ruling body’s mind.

Indeed, he states: “I do not think the M.C.C. outrules leg-theory.” Larwood does not use the term bodyline; but leg-theory with high velocity bowling is bodyllne—nothing else. Criticism of the M.C.C.’s request for the board of control barracking was made by a leading cricket authority to-day. "How can anybody control barracking?" he said. “It Is Impossible. The most that can be done is for the police to Interfere. Is there Is obscene language. “But—here's the point: While the M.C.C. ts pressing the Board to check ‘barracking,’ It is allowing Its own players—notably Larwood and Jardine —to WTtte books and give Interviews offensive to Australian crowds, cricketers. and cricket authorities.

“Now, ts it not much easier for the M.C.C. to check its players, whose fulminations do so much damage, than for the Board to check noisy, but In most cases, perfectly good-natured barracklkng?”