WHAT IS AN AMATEUR?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1360, 10 February 1912, Page 12

WHAT IS AN AMATEUR?

MARYLEBONE DEFINITION. Keen interest iu the cricket dispute between the players and tho Board of Control is being evinced in Sydney, The question has boon asked: Do the rebellious six players represent all those cricketers who are considered as being eligible for selection in the team which is about to tour England? To that answer must be given au emphatic "No." As very few people outside of the inner circles of cricket know the exact wording of the Marylebono Club's definition of au amateur, it should prove interesting at this juncture to quote it:— The subject of tho definition and qualification of amateurs having been, brought before the Marylebonc committee, a sub-committee was appointed to consider the whole' question, and tho subcommittee, on July 29, 1579, reported aa follows:— "In the consideration of the question submitted by the committee, wo have, in the first instance, referred to the. accounts of the last few years, in order to ascertain tho amount which has bc-en expended by the club under the, long-established rule that a gentleman who is invited to play in an M.C.C. match, and would be debarred from playing by the expense to which he would be put, may, on application to the secretary, receive his reasonable expenses, . . . We see no reason for recommending the abolition of this old-established rule, but we think it advisable that the committee should lay down distinctly the principle on which they are prepared to act, especially as regards the match Gentlemen v. Players. We are of opinion that no gentleman ought to make a profit by his services in the cricket lield, and that for (he future any cricketer taking any more than his expenses in any match should not be qualified to play for the Gentlemen against the Players at Lords, but tliui'i if any ' gentleman fools dillicully in joining in a match without Mich a~«Mun«\ ho should not bo debarred from playing as a gentleman by having his actual expenses defrayal. . . ." l'rom llio foregoing it will bi» seen thnl Australian cricki'tors are not: amateurs in tho true ae.:i'ptanr.e of the term, \rars (iKo. however, tho Marylebone- Club, out of compliment tn the Australians, agreed to accept them as amateurs, niving that it did not want to ink-viore with tho domestic life of the Australians. The players involved in the present dispute are "now probably aware that I heir li-tf-r will be wusideved by Uie Hoard of Control. In the moantiim\ as has been siißKesled by CiuU'V, though it may not lie brought about in llio particular way suKjieVtnl by him, the Rap dividing the players and' the board may be bridged. The dignity »f Australian cricket, so long enshrii'u<k\l by regretUible incidents demands that (lie mutter should bo ended.—Sydney "Daily Telegraph.'