HAWKE CUP CRICKET WALF-OFF ENDORSED

Chronicle (Levin), 11 April 1947, Page 6

HAWKE CUP CRICKET WALF-OFF ENDORSED

Manawata Executive Reports To N.Z. Council A full review of circumstances leadliig up to the decision of Mr. W, E. Norris, captain of the Manawatu team, to discontinue play in the Hawke Oup cricket challenge match against Hawke' s Bay at Napier on April 9, was given hy the manager of the team, Mr. A. M.. Ongley, and Mr. Norris, in a report presented to the management committee of the Manawatu Cricket Association at a meeting held in Palmerston North last night. After consideration of the report, it was unanimously decided that it should be forwarded to. the New Zealand Cricket Council, .and that a copy should be sent to the Hawke 's Bay Cricket! Association. A furtber 'resoiution was unanimously carried that the committee while regretting the necessity for such action, iully approved and endorsed .the decision of the. feam captain and manager not to. continue the game. The Hawke Cup, the source of the dispute, is to be forwarded to the New Zealand Cricket Council. "The termination of the match was uot flavoured by any desire to retain fche trophy, and we stand hy that attitude," commented Mr. Ongley, who arrived at tne meeting carrying the Hawke Cup safely locked up in its wooden cabinet. The joint report of the captain and manager, was as t'oilows: — ' ' The umpires, Messrs D. Pirie and J. H. Thompson, in accordance with Hawke Cup practiee, were appointed by the Hawke 's Bay Cricket Association. Mr. Pirie, an old Hawke 's Bay representative cricketer, is well known to both of us, and in his ability and impartiality we have the utmost conlidcuce. Mr. Thompson was unknovvn to us but, in view of an early decision when Miller was -given out caught beliiud the wicket olf a rising ball from Hownos followed shortly by an lbw decisiou to the same bowler, we began to have misgivings as to his qUalilications as an umpire and made inquiries from players and oue regular umpire in Hawke 's Bay cricket. As far as we could ascertaiu Mr. Thompson had come to Napier some timo during last cricket season; thac during the present season lie was playing junior. cricket in Napier and that as far as our informants knew he had not acted as umpire ixi any other match this season. "Of Manawatu 's first six wickets to MU, live were out lbw and oue caught behiud the wicket. Only *one of these decisions was given by Mr. Pirie — au lbw decision against McVicar that was iiover questioncd. The other iive decisions were given by Mr. Thompson o!T the bovvling of Uownes and all were disputcd not only by the "victiins" but also by the batsnian at the opposite end. McVicar supportcd Miller in his statemeut that he had not touched the ball from which he was given out. C'oilis 's statement that he had hit the ball from which he was given out lbw was further supportcd by Mr. McGavin, chairman of the Napier BubAssociation, who gave a commentary of Lhe match.

"At tlic attcrnoon tca adjournment Mr. Ongley in discussiiig Mr. Thomp sou's lbw decisions with Mr. T. Reaney, captain ujt the Hawke 's Bay team, said: 'You know Hownes can 't get leg be t'ore decisions like that.' Mr. Reaney: said: 'He can if he kccps them up. ; To the further statement: 'But he's uot keeping them up, ' Mr. Reaney made no reply. ' "Returnirig to the ground from the tea adjourninent Mr. Reaney said to Mr. Norris' that he was sorry about the lbw decisions. However, shortly after the resumption of play Norris himself was added to Hownes ' ' victim's ' given out lbw by Mr. Thompson. ' ' At the close of play for the dav Manawata had, thanks to a stand by M. Ongley and Holland, carried theii total to 113 for 8 wickets. "On resumption of play on Monday Dovvnes bowled round the wicket (he had bowled over the wicket on f8aturday) for several overs from Mr. Thompson 's end and then changed to Mr. Pirie 's end and again bowled over the wicket without any further lbw decisions in his favour and without taking any further wickets. " Manawatu 's inniiigs closed with 171 ruiis on the board. Hawke 's Bay replied with 127 runs, thanks to a determiiied effort for 51 by Perrin, a batsman who conliued his scoring shots almost entirely to the leg side, but whose 'on' shots the Manawatu bowlers were unable to check. "When Manawatu began their secoud innings with a lead of 4-1 runs Downes was again operating from Mr. Thompson 's end and a repetition of Ihe lirst innings commcnced. McVicar was oncc again out lbw to H. Beancy, a decision by Mr. Pirie which is again unchaJlengcd. Miller, C'oilis and J. Ongley were all out 'to lbw decisions by Mr. Thompson o!T Hownes' bowling. 1 With our knowledge of Hownes' bowling and allowing foi the fact that we were Jiot directly in line with the wicket we have no hesitation in saying that these tliree latter decisions 'were delinitelv bad decisions.

"(1) Miller stepped" as far down the wicket as he could reach with his left leg, he was struek on the outside of the leg' and the ball rau down to line leg. ' ' (.2) (Jollis moved his left leg well outside the line of his stance, held his bat aeross his body without making an attempt to play the ball which struck hira above the left knee and he was also given out lbw. "(3) J. Ongley was next and after discussing with Norris* the possibility of avoiding a similar end took centre and leg and, playing forward, the ball missed' his left leg and struck liim on the riglit leg which had not moved. He was also out lbw. "Four wickets were down for 17 runs — all lbw decisions. Fourteen Manawatu wickets had now fallen, nine of which were lbw. Hownes had taken nine wickets, seven of which were lbw decisions — all by Mr. Thompson. "We then discussed what .next ehould be done as in our opinion the game had beeome a farce which should not be allowed to continue and we decided that tliere were only two alternatives open, (1) that the umpire, Mr. Thompson, should be replaced, or (2) that the match should be discontinued. Mr. Norris went on to the ground and

told Mr. Reaney the position. Mr. Reaney said -he . could' not agree to the removal of the umpire. Mr. Norris then infornied him that so far as Manawatu were concerned' play would not continue. Bowden, the 'not out' batsman, -then left the field in company with Mr. Norris. "We realised that the decision to discontinue play was a drastic one and one that should not he made except under the most exceptional circumstances but we were of the opinion then and are still of the opinion that the circumstances in this case were such that in the inter,ests of cricket and of the right of all teams to play cricket under the laws, of the game that Mr. Norris took the only course open to him. That we were not alone in our i opinion of Mr. Thompson 's decisions is borne out by the fact that Mr. T. Reaney apologised to Mr. Norris for the first innings decisions; that Mr. Singleton, chairman of the Hawke 's Bay Cricket Association, expressed his sympathy to Collis on the decisions against him in both innings and Mr. Singleton, 'vs statement to J. Ongley (the last wicket to fall) oh his return to the pavilion: 'You can't play cricket under those conditions.' ' ' Hownes, of, course, is no stranger to the niembers of your committee. He played cricket in Manawatu for approximately ten years and was noted for his persistent, though generally unsuccossful, appeals for lbw from balls which either pitched outside the ieg stump or which would not have hit the stumps. "The records available foi' the two seasons since cricket resumed after the war are of interest. Last season Hownes represented Manawatu in three Hawke Cup matches, represented Wellington against Manawatu afid Minor Associations against Wellington, Otago and Auckland, dnd Wellington against Auckland. In these nine matches he bowled more than 240 overs and took 37 wickets for three lbw decisions. "When Hownes played for Manawatu against Hawke 's Bay last season under Manawatu unipires he bowled 40 overs for eight wickets without a singie lbw decision. Compare this with seven lbw decisions out of nine wickets for Hawke 's Bay under umpire Thompson and the story necds no further telling. "We have no complaints against the Hawke 's Bay Cricket Association nor any of its ruembers, further than that they unfortunately appointed an incompetent umpire and were unable to provide a solution for the trouble which they thereby ereated. Those niembers of the association with whom we came in contact regretted the position as sincerely as we did. ■ "In our opinion the troubie arose simply from the fact that Hownes discovered that for the first time in years he had an umpire who could be 'bluft'ed' by loud appeals accompanied by some body' contortions and decided to mahe the most of his opportunity. Bo well did Hownes exploit the position that the game degeiierated from a cricket match into a- farce.

"We, personally, have no doubt that Hownes was well oware that his appeals were not justiiled; that he had not suddenly changed from a bowler who had got three leg before decisions in two seasons off more than 240 overs to one -who ftould.get an honest lbw decision practically every time he hit a batsman. This -opinion is coniirnied by Howneb ' rfemark to us "both before we left the ground after the termination of the match. In reply to a statement coucerning Mr. Thompson 's umpiring Howns, referring to the fact that in the second innings he had changed the end from which he bowled so that he would again bowl from Mr. Thompson 's end-, said: 'What do you think I followed him around for! ' "Mr.* T. Reaney has played so often with and against Hownes that . in our opinion he eaijnot have been una,ware of the unfairness of Hownes' appeals and Mr. Thompson 's decisions. His conversation with Mr. Ongley already referred. to and his statement to Mr. Norris that he ' was sorry about the lbw decisions' sliow that he realised the position. Mr. Reanev 's position of captain of the Hawke 's Bay team was, no doubt, oue of some diffieulty, but the fact remains that he took no steps on his own initiative to remedy the cause of eomplaint and when approached by Mr. Norris to agree to the removal of Mr. Thompson he refused to agree. The decision restcd with him and in making his decision he knew that it would mean the discontinuance of play in the match. We appreciate that the request to him to agree to the removal of the umpire was asking him to accept a hcavy responsibility. That he decided not to accept that responsibility and preferred to see the game discontinued we cannot hold against him.

"Some eommcnt has been made through the Press that the cup was hot handed over to the Hawke 's Bay Cricket Association. The cup at ail times was in the possession of Mr. Ongley. No mention of the cup or its handiug over was made by any membcr of the Hawke 's Bay association or by the captain of the Hawke 's Bay team. In the circumstances he decided that the best course would be to return the cup to your association with the suggestion that it should be forwarded to the New -Zealand Cricket Council togetker with a report on the match. "In conclusion we would say that we entirely agree with Mr. Singleton 's expressed opinion that 'cricket could not be played under those conditions.' If cricket could not be played under those conditions then obviously the conditions had to be altered or ended. Hawke 's Bay was unable or unwilling to alter the conditions; Manawatu was unable to alter the conditions but was able to and d'id end them. "In this action Mr. Norris had the wholehearted«support of every member of his team — the niembers of which it must be remembered had travelled to Napier at their own expense to play this match and were not likely to have approved of its abandonment without grave cause. " - > ' x