BOWLING OR THROWING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6065, 31 December 1897, Page 4

BOWLING OR THROWING.

<• : RANJITSINHJI INTERVIEWED. {Sydney Sunday Times.) Eecently we published an article in reply to Ranjitsinhji's wriiing3 in his book and in the Review of Reviews. Below we give the reply of the Indian Prince to a Sunday Times interviewer. He was still in bed, but looked well. He at once remarked : — " I appreciate a fair criticism like this one," referring to the Sunday Times article. " Some newspapers have been sent me from Adelaide containing nothing but abuse, because I wrote about their ground and the form of their players purely as a critic. They went so far as to send me telegrams to Toowoomba congratulating me upon my ' egg.' " lam not at all sore that people disagree with me," he continued. "I like every one to have his own opinion. It is only a matter of opinion after all, and if one differs from another he has no need to be abusive. I appreciate a criticism ■written in the strain of this (the /Sunday Tivies) article." " Will you explain the apparent inconsistency in the opinions given in the book and in the Review article ?" " Yes. The no-ball rule^ as it stands, is impracticable, and is not acted up to by umpires. As a matter of equity, in my opinion, the bowler is as much entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the case of noftall as the batsman is in the case of a ■oatch. Practically nothing is a no-ball unless it .is an undoubted • throw ; theoretically a doubtful ball is a no-ball; yet this has never been enforced by umpires. "In stating in my book that 'from an umpire's point of view the delivery of Jones in England was unfair/ I . meant that it was against' the law, and not in my opinion unfair. At Adelaide the case was different, for there was no doubt about ! the throwing. If there was a doubt, I should not have said a word about Jones. I don't think he knew he threw, for he is a thoroughly good sportsman." " How is it that throwers are permitted to transgress in English cricket ?" " Merely doubtful deliveries are not ' noballed ' in England. The reason is that the leading club has. encouraged this by being passive. It does not matter to me whether a man is an Englishman or an Australian. I have accused only two bowlers of throwing— C. B. Fry and Jones. As to the former, he tells me plainly that be thinks he does not throw, and I tell him plainly that I think he does throw. He and I are great friends. He hasn't a better friend in England, and I haven't a better friend in England, and yet, you see, we differ." "You think Phillips was not wrong in cautioning Jones ?" "If Phillips erred at all, he did so on the right side. The very fact t bat he cautioned him time after time shows that he was loth to take the extreme step. There is a good deal of equity in not no-balling a merely doubtful delivery." "The law on the subject you think should be altered?" "Undoubtedly. What is the use of a rule you cannot act upon ? The Marylebone Cricket Club is to blame for the laxity allowed. If you read the whole of the article in my book you will see that I was defending Australia in the extract quoted — the context will show you this." "Is it true that you were one of those who endeavoured to secure the services of Jones for the Sussex County Club?" " No ; I give it an absolute denial. I never made a move in the matter ; never even suggested the engagement of Jones ■t-j one member of the club."