L.B.W. DECISIONS UMPIRES CRITICISED

Wanganui Chronicle, 6 January 1947, Page 5

L.B.W. DECISIONS UMPIRES CRITICISED

ENGLISH WRITERS PROTEST London, Jan. 3, Cricket writers for the English newspapers and agencies criticise the umpiring in the third Test at Melbourne for leg-before decisions against Edrich and Compton. The British United Press correspondent who, the agency points out, is an Australian, says that once again the trend of a test match has been altered by a doubtful decision. The English players, rather than be accused of squealing in the face of defeat, have maintained silence throughout the tour. There is no suggestion of anything more than human fallibility, but it savours of incompetent umpiring.

The •‘Evening Standard’s” correspondent, Bruce Harris, says Edrich hit the ball to which he was given leg-before. The case of Compton was more open. Right or wrong, these two decisions ruined England’s Chances.

E. M. Wellings, writing in the “Evening News,” says the unfortunate leg-before decision against Edrich may even be vital in deciding the fate of the Ashes. He adds in criticism of Umpire Scott that Edrich appeared to snick the ball against his pad. “Edrich wasn’t out, Compton wasn’t out—yet they were given out,” says Harold Dale, cabling the "Daisy Express” from Melbourne. He says: “The cricket in the third day of the test was rendered morally null and void. “The scores are fictitious ana the ultimate result probably meaningless. These things are hard to write, but I do so after careful thought and after having been fortified by the opinions of eminent Australian cricketers who are in a position to know the truth,” he added.

Dale, detailing the fate of both batsmen, said there were world-famous witnesses who say they heard the ball meet Edrich’s bat, and there was the bat itself, which bore a mark honestly claimed to have been made by the ball, yet Edrich was given out leg-before. Compton, after scoring 11, allowed a ball from Toshack to break in from the leg and strike his pads. He was momentarily aghast when given out. “The effect of these decisions goes deeper than the return of the batsmen to the pavilion,” wrote Dale.

“The morale of the whole side Is shaken. They know not whom to fear most—the bowler or the umpire.”