CRICKET INQUIRY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17036, 9 May 1923, Page 9

CRICKET INQUIRY.

WATERED WICKETS ALLEGATIONS. An allegation by two 'Wellington players that the wicket at Lancaster J ark had been watered on Sunday, Fcbrury 2d, while the Wellington Canterbury cricket match was in progress was the subject of an inquiry held yesterday in the Automobile Association’s rooms. NO LIBEL ACTION. When tlm inquiry was resumed alter lunch, Mr Thomas said that during the adjournment. he had discussed the matter with Mr Vagg and so that the hands of the committee should not be handicapped. Mr Vagg had instructed him that no libel action would he taken against Mr Collins. His reasons were, first, that both Mr Collins and Mr Broad had intimated quite clearly that they dissociated Mr Vagg entirely from any dishonest practice, and secondly he felt that the inquiry

would bo baulked unloss the board was loft with unlettered bands. The fac still remained that if the allegatior ■neie true. Mr A agg would be wrong ij that be had rolled a watered wic.kej and had not informed the association Mr Broad said that the intimatior »v«w satisfactory. Both Mr Collins ami Mr Hiddleston admitted that the result of the match had net been in anj way affected by whatever had beer rione. The match was lost bv Wellington’s bad fielding on Monday. I lie chairman expressed satisfaction with the quite correct attitude taken up by both par lies. That would tend to a true conclusion as to what reaflv occurred. This narrowed the inquiry down to : Mas the wicket watered b\ some persons unknown? If no, were the conditions as seen by Mr Collins caused by some other agency? WATER MARKS. J. S. Hiddleston, a member of the Wellington team, said that to his knowledge there was no rain on the Saturday evening. The weather was not conducive to dew. On the Sunday morning, the weather was very hot. He scratched the wicket because it looked as if something had happened to it. The ground was hard. Below the surface the ground was damp. Behind the wicket the ground underneath was dry. In other places on the wicket, there were marks left bv water. Hu opinion was that tlm condition had been caused by the application o! water, not by dew. WEATHER AND DEW. Arthur .Sims, called by the Canterbury Association, said that he had :ui extensive knowledge of cricket in many parts ol the world, of wickets in Camberbury, and of the peculiarities of the Christchurch climate. If the wicket was watered, it was the dirtiest thing ever known in cricket in New &ca land. As far as the Rules of Cricket were concerned, it must, be remembered that these were always followed, except that local rules took precedence. Tn Australia it was the same. For instance, the hours of play and time of rolling were different from those provided in the M. 0.0. rules. In Christchurch it was not uncommon in good weather to find that it was not desirable to play tennis on grass be lore 11 a.in. That was because of the dew. He bad frequently had that experience himself, even when the court was laid down on an old shingly river bank. In the middle of the summer, when the dew had been bad. tennis balls got damp -when tliev lodged at the end to which the court had slope. He would never put the roller on a court during the morning. EFFECT OF ROLLING. Examined by Mr Ward. Mr Sims said every ground had conditions of its own. and the groundsman was the best judge. Tn his recollection. Lancaster Park responded very much to heavy rolling. If a wieket. were watered and rolled it would tend to improve it. but a. great deal depended on the weather conditions following. In the only historical case known, the tampering of the wicket had an effect quite the opposite to that intended by the perpetrator. To the chairman: During the many years when be captained Canterbury and New Zealanrl. he always left the rolling of the wicket to the groundsmTo Mr Broad: His attention had never been called to the presence of mud caused by dew in a depression. His experience of dew was confined to his own lawn. Mr Broad : If there was mud in one depression and another was bone-dry. would that he caused by dew or by water from a hose? Mr Sims: I would want to know if the wicket had been rolled. That is the crux of tire matter. Would the mud he caused by a roller?—A heavy roller going over dew could make a depression sticky, while the depression that was not touched would remain dry. Tf one hole was wet and the other dry. such condition j could not have been caused by a roller, j provided the previous treatment of j both was the game. j Mr Thomas: It' the holes had been j made in two patches of soil of different j nature, could the roller go over them I and leave one muddv and the other j dry? Yes. Mr D. Reece : Is it possible that the j rivulets could be caused by pressure f from a roller forcing dew off grass?— ! Yes. That is obvious. WAS HE SUSPICIOUS? Cross examined by Air Ward, Mr Hiddleston said the reason for visiting the ground on Sunday did not concern the I allegation that the wicket had been watered. Were you suspicious? Air Broad objected. The chairman said that the question was relevant. Air A\ ard : Did you go down expecting to see a watered wicket ?—-I went down to see that it was dry. (Laughter.) Do you agree that the wicket liml been flooded?—lt had not been cause] by dew. Was the wicket very wet?—Xot very 'vet. Tt had the appearance of having been flooded. Why was the wicket dry at the sides 3 —I suppose the water was not put there. \N hat is your experience of dew?—l have never known it to settle on dust. A\ ill you still hold that opinion if evidence is brought to the contrary P—l am open to conviction. Mr Thomas: Would any amount of evidence convince you that it was caused by dew and by the patchy nature of the pitch?—T would require practical demonstration. How did you make the bole in the pitch?—With my heel. Did you dig your heel under a dry patch?—Ye*. Tt was dry right through. The chairman: Hare you ever on any other occasion gone to a ground on Sunday to inspect the wieket?—Yes. CANTERBURY’S CAPTAIN. Mr W. R. Patrick, captain of tha Canterbury team, said that before the

match he made no arrangement with Mr Collins. They simply tossed. J.t was wrong to say that lie had agree! that the game should he played under the Rules of Cricket. He said nothing to Mr Collins about the care of the wicket. He instructed Vagg to keep the wicket in as good order as possible, without the use of water. There were no restrictions about the time of roll ing. That was in accordance with the J practice for the past ten years. During the match lie heard nothing about tho * allegation that the wicket . had bee*, watered. He bad found at Lancaster * I ark that the wicket varied at each end. On the Monday after the tea adjournment he remarked to Blunt that the wicket had changed. Worm casts were showing plainly on the top of the I wicket. Air Barrett : Did the condition of the (wicket at any time cause von to suspect that it had been flooded ?—No. Tim wicket on Monday morning was as fast a; at any other time during the match, j The balls were firing high/ I Mr Broad: Was the wicket wearing on the Saturday afternoon ?—No. Air Broad : How were conditions on Monday afternoon, late?—The difficulty o! timing the balls may have been due to the bad light as well as to the wicket. M ETEOR OLOGI ST’S EVIDENCE. Mr Henry F. Skey, director of the Magnetic Observatory, Christchurch, said that.at 5 p.m. on Saturday. February 24, the sky was almost overcast, wind, light S.E. and humidity 64 per cent at five feet above the ground. One hundred per cent humidity meant vain, dew, or log. On the Sunclav morning the humidity at 9.30 was 69 Per cent. During the night the minimum air temperature was 46.7, and tho minimum wet thermometer w as 46 6. so that the air at a height of five feet was saturated. The minimum tempera tii re on the grass during tile S&turday-Sunday night was 30.3 dcgices. This showed that a considerable deposit ot moisture took piac-e. The deposit of dew must have been very heavy. On the Monday morning, the records showed tha* shower of rain fell between 10.30 p.m. and midnight on the Sundav evening. Ibe S.E. wind in Christchurch gave damp conditions and it was possible chere was a light shower at Lancaster F’ark on the Saturday evening. It could have been a local shower. Hiopinion was that the condition at Lan caster Park on the Sunday morning was a ground log. meaning that mois cure wa.s deposited. The wind was S.S.W. light on the Sunday morning 3nu the sky was more than half overcast. The ground would not dry very rapidly under those conditions, as the temperature did not begin to rise till seven o’clock. To Mr Broad: He bad noticed a \ cry heavy clew form on dust and cause mud. Mr N. F. Pcngelly said he had often piayed at Lancaster Park. He was there on the Sundav morning and he was certain that the wicket bad not been watered. It was very wet with dew. J. Du Feu. superintendent of tb. • t Albans bowling green and Thomas Marker, a bowler who has represented New Zealand, gave evidence in regard to the prevalence of dew in Canterbury. A STATEMENT DENIED. Roger Charles Blunt, a member of Hie Canterbury team, said that on the Sunday morning Mr Collins implied. .r. answer to a question as to how the wicket looked that there bad been something in tho nature of a “ local shower.” He (Blunt) asked if Collins meant the- wicket had been watered. Collins did not reply. Mr Broad: From whom did you hear, that Collins and Hidclleston had been to the park?---From members of the Wellington team. Was Collins excited?- 1 did not notice particularly. Did ho say to you. “ Roger. r l lm wicket has been watered?" -No. He said there had been a ‘ local shower." Did von take rour bat immediately and leave?- No. I talked with other members of tho team for some time. CARFT A K ER' S STOP V. Henry Vagg. caretaker cf Lancaster Park, said that on the Fridav evening Mr Collins said to him that he would ; leave the rolling of the wicket to witj ness to do as he thought best. He j rolled it on Sunday morning after sweeping it with a soft- broom. If it j had been flooded be would not have I been able to use the broom. He had j bad thirty-two years’ experience of j looking after grounds. The wicket did [ not receive any water from be fere the beginning of the match. From his experience. the damp was not attributI able to anything but dew. The rolling cf a dewy pitch would be sufficient to make muddy deposits. Some parts of the ground held water more than the others. To Mr Ward: No one could get the hose to water the wicket unless they broke into the shed. No one had broken into the shed. No one else could got water for the pitch unless they carried it ofl' the road in buckets. Unless witness did the watering it was not done. To Mr Broad: In rolling, the roller might go a couple of yards beyond the end of the wickets. Witness could not see the wicket from his house. To Mr Collins: He found it a difficult matter to get the wicket to dry evenly. Frank Shacklock, cricket professional of forty-five years’ standing, said in his opinion the state of the wicket on the Sunday was caused by a heavy dew. Evidence was concluded in time for the Wellington representatives to catch the ferry steamer. The chairman said the evidence would be carefully considered by the Cricket Council. It. would duly give its decision and report to the Wellington and Canterbury Associations at the same time.