BITTER NOTTS CLUB MEETING

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 97, 18 January 1935, Page 9

BITTER NOTTS CLUB MEETING

Body-line Controversy NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION PASSED ‘ By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. London, January 16. “They were two dreadful overs. They constituted a direct attack against the batsman.” Tims the umpires in the AustraliaNotts match reported on Voce’s two overs on Monday evening, but, despite this, a bitter meeting of the Notts Club, by a show of hands, overwhelmingly carried a vote of no-confidence in the club committee. At least 2000 out of 3000 members packed the Albert Hall, Nottingham’s largest public building. A special staff of doorkeepers kept back (pieties and scrutinised admission cards. The committee’s report stated that three formal complaints of "direct attack” bowling were received, the first from Lancashire, with whom the umpires disagreed; then from Australia and Middlesex. Both the hitter complaints the umpires declared justified, lint apart from these formal protests the committee knew that great dissatisfaction with some of the Notts bowling existed in several counties. The Nottinghamshire public, which apparently believed that it was a controversy with Australia alone, had no idea of the widespread nature of the complaints. Leading cricketers throughout England during the Trent Bridge Test freely stated that action against Notts was contemplated by many counties. Overs Against Australia. The committee refused to act on Lancashire’s complaint because the umpires did not uphold it. Then came the Australian match. Voce bowled magnificently the first day, but two entirely different overs before the stoppage owing to bad light on Monday mostly consisted of short, bumpy balls, flying at the batsmen’s heads and shoulders. Messrs. Bushby and Bull (Australia) immediately after stumps protested against these two overs. The umpires were interviewed, and they reported as above. Later, the M.C.C. forwarded a copy of a letterfrom Mr. Bushby, stating that Voce in several instances adopted tactics, similar to those employed in Australia, "to which we took exception." The letter added : “I understand you were a party to the agreement under which we came to England. Voce’s bowling is certainly intimidatory, and a direct attack on our batsmen.” The Notts committee decided that the only course was to apologise. Then, on October 6, Middlesex wrote declaring that Voce’s bowling in the Lord's match was sometimes “obviously a direct attack on the batsman.” One umpire in this match, in a. written report, said : “My opinion, without fear or favour, is that Voce's bowling is unfair.” The committee again had no option but lo apologise. 'Pile report dealing with the captaincy said that the Notts club at the end of the 1934 season was on the brink of disaster. Something had to be done. “Lancashire refused to renew fixtures. Middlesex had a legitimate grievance, while our friendly relations with some other counties hung on a slender thread. It was clear that unless an entirely new spirit was created there might be a general refusal by other counties to renew fixtures.” Decision to Drop Carr. “The key to the situation was the captaincy, and the decision to drop A. W. Carr was clearly justified by Carr’s recent statements to the Press. His statement that Voce’s bowling was not unfair showed that trouble was practically certain to recur under a captain whose view of fair bowling so fardiffered from that of first-class umpires and many leading cricketer, while the statement that '1 will never restrain my bowlers from bowling as they think lit’ proves that Carr fails to appreciate one of the chief responsibilities of a captain, namely, the team’s conduct on the field.” The chairman, Aiderman Huntsman, ruled out of order a motion demanding the committee's resignation and expunging Notts’s apology from the club minutes. Then Mr. Whitby moved a vote of no confidence. Mr. A. C. Adams, seconding, said that Voce’s bowling against Australia and Middlesex was above suspicion. The ex-captain, A. W. Carr, said "I don’t mind being dropped. If the committee want me at any time next year I am at their disposal, but I am > re to support Bill Voce. I swear that neither Larwood nor Voce ever bowl at the man. After Voce took eight wickets in the Australian match Mr. Bushby said to a Notts committeeman. .‘Haven’t you any control over your bowlers?’ The Australians were determined to get Voce by fair or foul means. They succeeded. Those two overs were bowled according to tlie M.C.C. rules.” Another speaker said that when Lilley, who captained Notts, in the pavilion wished Fleetwood Smith "Good morning,” lie did not reply. "I ■told Lilley I did not think anybody could be sp ungentlemanly.” Lilley replied: "They are all like that.” The speaker added: "I heard Kippax say to Voce, ‘How many are you going to lame to-day?’ ” Withdrawal of Voce. Discussion also centred on Voce's withdrawal from the match. Dr. Gould, the honorary secretary, was jeered when he declared that Lilley informed him on Tuesday morning that Voce was not really sound. “I examined Voce, who complained of pain on both shins, while pressure over the lower half of the tibia caused wincing. Rest was the only treatment, so I asked Voce to stand down.” Mr. Whitby read a document signed by Voce: “I hereby declare that I was lit and willing to play. Any statement to the contrary is untrue.” “Woodfull secured what he wanted, namely, an apology. Voce came to the ground ready to play. Ask his missus, declared Mr. Whitby. A show of hands demonstrated over a 2 to 1 majority in favour of the motion. A prominent committeeman declared that the committee would probably not await the annual meeting, but would resign immediately en bloc. The committee’s report made it clear that it did not reflect on Larwood’s bowling. DENIAL BY KIPPAX (Received January 18, 12.20 a.m.) Sydney, January 17. Kippax to-day emphatically denied the remark attributed to him He declared that the only time he saw and spoke to Voce was in the field.