WERE WICKETS WATERED?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17035, 8 May 1923, Page 7

WERE WICKETS WATERED?

A CRICKET ENQUIRY. SEQUEL TO CANTERBURY MATCH. An allegation by two Wellington players that me wicket, at Lancaster j'ura iiaa been watered on bunaaj, reorury 20, while tne \\ ellington Canter•; bury cricket match was in progress was ; the subject of an inquiry begun today j in the Automobile Association s rooms, i Canterbury won tne match referred to. i scoring 22 0 and 432 against Wellington's 370 and 173, ana secured the Pipnke t Shield. On the Monday following the day | when the wicket is alleged to have been ; watered, Canterbury put on over 3<H) ! runs ior four wickets, and Blunt score l 1 his century. Mr J. fc>. Barrett, chairman of the j Management Committee of the New j Zealand Cricket Council, presided. Par- ! ties interested and represented were : 1 Wellington Cricket Association, Messrs ! D. C. Collins,' P. B. Broad and J. S ! Hiddieston : Canterbury Cricket Asso , eiation, .Mr R. B. Ward; Lancaster ! Park Board of Control. Air H. H. Wau- 1 chop ; caretaker of Lancaster Park (Mr j H. Vagg), Mr C. S. Thomas. j The chairman ruled that Mr Vagg ! was an interested party, though Mr j Broad said that the Wellington Aaso eiation made no allegation against him ! i’ - any way whatever. Mr Broad raised the point that the ; Board of Inquiry should not include i any member oi the New Zealand Cric- j Uet Council who was a member of the Canterbury Association or of the Lan- ; caster Park Board of Control. Mr Barrett pointed out that this rui- j ing. if put into operation. Would ex- ! elude nearly every member of the Cricket Council. Mr Broad said his objection was not j based on personal grounds. Air S. F. Wilson said the objection ! I was raised too late. The point should ! I have been threshed out liefore. The chairman decided to overrule the- j objection. WELLINGTON'S CASE. Mr Broad, outlining Wellington’s case, said that his association contended that between the close of play on the Saturday afternoon and ii a.m. on the Sunday, the wicket on Lancaster Park on which the match was. played was swept, rolled and watered; by whom, his association did not know and therelore made no allegation. David C. Collins, captain of the Wellington representative cricket team, said the game began on Friday, January 23. At the termination of the second day s play Wellington were 133 on and Canterbury had nine wickets in hand in their second innings. When play ceased on Saturday, Mr Brice and he inspected the wicket. It was crumbled and loose on top, so that the ball could turn considerably. Kendetson. at one end. had been making the balls roar in an alarming manner. The wicket was dry and dusty. On Sunday morning, about I], Mr Hiddieston and he inspected the wicket. They found che wicket in a bad condition. They examined it carefully. Mr Hiddieston scratched a hole about an inch deep in front of the wicket, behind the popping crease. The earth was damp die whole way down. Mr Hiddieston went behind the wicket and found it dry and dusty—that was on a prepared portion oi the wicket. They found all the howlers’ holes and those made by the batsmen very muddy in the bottom. One bole made by a bowler at the score board end was not in the same condition as the others. It was dry and dusty. That hole was made by the bowler’s right foot behind the return crease, arid it had been made by a howler bowling over the wicket. The holes made by the wicket-keeper and those, in front of the wicket had mud in the bottom. There were also tracks made by little rivulets running into the holes. Air Collins, in answer to Mr Barrett, aid the dry hole was eighteen inches from the return crease, and on the pavilion side of the wicket. Mr Broad: How were the wormcasts?—Worms had been working freely on the wicket throughout the match nnd batsmen had to sweep them How were they on Sunday morning? -There ''■"ere only three or four worm casts. SWEPT AND ROLLED. Mr Thomas said it was admitted that the wicket had been swept and rolled, by agreement with Mr Collins himself. Air Broad (to Mr Colins) : Did you agree that the wicket should be swept and rolled?—I did not agree with any At this stage Air Broad objected Co the lines the inquiry was taking. Mr Collins had already been threatened with an action for libel. The chairman said he could not se; that the inquiry would lead to anything but a difference of opinion. Air Broad said he could not advise Mr Collins to proceed. Air Thomas said the damage had been done. Air Barrett said Air Collins’s evi deuce had already been published. THE RULES OF CRICKET. The inquiry then proceeded. Air Collins said lie had agreed with Air Patrick that the match should b*played under the Rules of Cricket. These provided that the wicket should not be touched except for ten minutes before each innings and before the commencement of each day’s play. The arrangement made with the captain of the Auckland team in n previous maten was that the wicket should be light!v sprinkled with water on the Saturday night to ensure a good wicket on AIOII .day, when play was not to start ti* 1 *2 p.m. The groundsman was given the right to roil the wicket. That was not the arrangement made with M.* Patrick. “ LOST AIY HEAD.” Air Ward (to Air Collins): Why did you make the remark that the game should l>e played under the rules of cricket?—Because there had been | trouble previously. Who did you make it to?---Air Patrick. And lie denies that that agreement was made?—l stick to my statement. When you found, as you say. that the wicket had been watered, why did i yon not protest to an official 5 f w as so damned angvv. I lost my head. To Air Barrett.—l know now. I was wronng in not making a formal protest . 1 Mr Ward.— Do know anything about the Canterbury climate?—No Mr Thomas.- Did you make any attempt. to see Air Vagg—No. After this iniquitous thing had been done? — I did not know where Mr Vagg lived. i will call Air Blunt later. Did Air Blunt make any reply when you »poke to him about the wicket having been

watered ?—No, he walked out of the hotel. You are friendly with Air Blunt?— Yes, but not an intimate friend. He is a good sportsman ?—Absolutely . V*eie you angry then?—l had cooled down a bit. What did you think of Air Blunt walking away? - Air Broad : Is that relevant. Air Thomas: It is. Was Air Blunt angry?—Yes. ‘ A LOCAL SHOWER.” Did you say only a local shower ” when Air Blunt asked if you suggested xtat the wicket had been watered: After a further protest by Air Broad, on the score of relevancy. Mr Thomas proceeded with his question. Collins said, as iar as he knew. Blunt made no remark : I suggest that on Monday- you said j to your team in front of the pavilion , that the wicket had been watered ami that you did not address the remark :xo AJr Patrick.—l did not make the I remark to the team. Did you thipk the matter was im--1 portant when you made the remark 1 to Mr Patrick?- I cannot say so. I fo the chairman : ] did not consider | it an important matter. Air Thomas: Why - did you get ! angry?—l was angry from a game’s i point of view. ; Well was the mattei important from | a game’s point of view ? ANOTHER PROTEST. Air Broad protested that Air j Thomas's questions were not permisi sible as Vagg was not concerned in j them. The chairman ruled that the quesI tions were relevant. Vagg was con- \ oerned. Air Broad said the Wellington Asso- ! eiation made not the slightest ailega- ; tion against any member of the Cani terbury Association, against any mem | f>er of the Canterbury team or against ! Air Vagg. The chairman : That narrows down ! the inquiry considerably, i Questioned further. Mr Collins said ' he thought at the time that someone ! outside had “ got one on to him.” THE EFF ECT OF DEY7. ) Mr Collins went on to say that ho J had had a good deal of experience in i regard 10 the preparation of wickets, i much of it gained at Home. When Mr Hiddieston and he had finished in- ; specting the wicket, he saw Air R. C. j Blunt. He said to him, That wicket has been watered.” Blunt said nothing, but put on his liat and walked out of the hotel. Air Thomas: Air Blunt is not an official. Collins, continuing, said that on Alonday he made the same remark to Air Patrick, but he could not say if Air Patrick heard him. Air Patrick turned his back and walked away. COLLINS CROSS-EXAMIKED. Cross-examined by Air Ward, Mr Collins said lie had never seen the park being artificially watered. On the Sunday be did not see any marks of a hose or any footmarks. That did not strike him as being remarkable*—the ground was hard all round the wicket. Yet oil the wicket it was damp to the depth of an inch?—l said about an inch. Would that mean that it had been flooded P —Yes. Is it not remarkable then that one hole was dry?—l do not think so. Did not the rolling make the wicket appear wet?—l cannot make out what • you mean. In your letter you say dew may • have giv ( en the wicket a wet appearl ance if rolled in?—Yes. - Well, that may be the explanation? —Provided a wicket has been played on one or two days and there are players’ marks at each end, the dew would not affect- those marks. In other words, dew will not settle on dust. Will you admit dew will run into 1 the holes.?—No.

Do you know that holee are dug in England so that the dew will run into them ?—No. Air Broad said Air Ward would have to bring evidence in regard to this, if lie pursued the point. Mr Ward: Don’t worry about that. Air Barrett said Air Ward had sufficient legal knowledge of the matter to know the course he should adopt. LEGAL ARGUMENT. Gollins said that after the match he thought no more of the matter until he received a letter from Vagg’s solicitor. Then were you surprised when you saw the article in the “ Free Lance ”? Air Broad protested. Mr Thomas said he objected^to Air Broad’s interruptions. Air Broad said he would continue to protest if Air Thomas continued on the same lines. He was endeavouring to gain evidence for a libel action. The objection wae upheld. Air Barrett said that Air Thomas must not refer to any newspaperarticle. Air Thomas asked if Air Collins < • uid say what kind of weather prevailed an the Saturday night. Collins said there was no fog. It was overcast. Do you know that the park consists of different soils?—Yes. And you have never seen dew that will make dust muddy ?—No. Well, if it were proved, would you alter your opinion?—l would. Did Vagg. at the end of the first day’s play, ask you what he should do about the wicket?—l do not remember. Did you say to Vagg “ T leave it to you. Roll it when, you think best?” —No. Did you see him rolling the wicket on Saturday morning?—Yes. That was within ten minutes of the commencement of play. The chairman. -Do you know that in New Zealand the rule as to the time of rolling is not strictly followed? —I have always thought it was. Tt should be. Re-examined by Air Broad Air Collins said that on the Saturday. the second day, the weather was warm in the morning. In the afternoon it turned chilly and the evening was cold. The conditions were not conducive to a heavy dew. Tine wicket on every other morning except on the first day was in the same condition as on the Sunday. Air Ward: Did the Wellington bats men on Saturday afternoon make a lot of runs? J think they did. At thjs stage the luncheon adjournment was taken. (Proceeding).