CRICKET

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 303, 23 December 1933, Page 6

CRICKET

WANGANUI ASSOCIATION 1 VICTORIA UNIVERSITY XI. ’ Thu Victoria University College J Cricket Club has announced its team to play Wanganui on Christmas Day an 1 Boxing Day, the match taking place at. Cook’s Gardens. Play will ccinmcnce at 10.30. The visitors’team ' contains several players of Plunkct Shield standard and enthusiasts arc assured of seeing play of a high order. Following is the Victoria team: — Messrs. Cshorn (captain), Pactz, Carey. Blandford, Masters, O’Leary, Osborn, Ryan, Wicks, Wilson, Wild. JUNIOR GRADE A second grade practice match is to take place between Marist A and B on Peat Park at 2 p.m. to-day. AN UMPIRING INCIDENT CORRESPONDENT COMMENTS INTERESTING SUGGESTION. The following interesting letter from a Hunterville correspondent refers to an incident, in last Saturday’s cricket matches which was •commented on by “Clemil 1 ” in Wednesday’s notes:— Dear Sir, —I was very interested in reading amongst the cricket comments in your paper . about an overthrow after the umpire had called “over,” and the alteration of a five back to one run after the end of the game. I would very much like to know what decision that umpire would have given had the ball been returned back to tho bowler “with the batsman out of his ground” and he had broken the wickets with ball in hand and appealed “How’s that.” Had I been the umpire at the wicketkeeper’s end and the ball had been returned straight to the ’keeper, who broke the wicket and appealed to me I would certainly have given the batsman out, notwithstanding the other umpire’s call of “over.” Though there is no rule appertaining to same, tho idea that once an umpire has given a decision it cannot be altered is not correct and several instances have, occurred “in first-class cricket,” where a batsman has been allowed to continue his innings after tho umpire has incorrectly given him out. No umpire is infallible. In my opinion tho umpire in tho Wanganui match made two mistakes, the second one being more serious than the first, whveh apparently was admitted, namely “that of calling ‘over’ when tho ball was practically in tho hands of one of tho outfield. Now if tho first is admittedly wrong why carry on a« if it were correct and make another error by depriving tho batting side of 4 runs obtained by an overthrow? Apparently tho players of both sides consider it a genuine overthrow and wore satisfied with it. Therefore what was tho umpire’s reason for instructing tho scorer to alter tho 5 back to a If Rule 50 certainly says that after tho umpire has called “over” tho ball is “dead,” yet the same rule says that after the umpire has called “over” “unless there has been a cessation of play” you can appeal for a batsman being out and the umpire can rule him out even though “over” has been called; therefore is it not only reasonable to say that, if vou can give a batsman out after “over” has been called, surely you may award him four runs filso, especially so if vou know you have called “over” before you should huve done so. I think that a ruling should he obtained from the Wanganui Cricket Association ftr.l if the-$ cannot come to a unanimous decision the matter should be forwarded to the N.Z C.C. for a decision. I have often heard “over” called when the ball is in tho hards of a fieldsman near the wicket and no attempt to run is made, but this is the first time I have ever hoard of “over” being called when tho hall was in tho hands of an outfield, other than when he has made a fa> catch from the last ball of an over.—Yours faithfully. ALBERT W. PORTER