THE DACRE INCIDENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 March 1924, Page 4

THE DACRE INCIDENT.

STATEMENT BY UMPIRE. The failure of the New Zealand team, and incidents of the match (the second Test) with the visiting New South Wales team, have given much material for discussion in local cricket circles (says the Wellington “Post”). The main topic is the Dacre incident. Oil the umpire’s decision against that batsman there is a difference of opinion, but. while some people hold the view that the umpire was correct iu ruling that Dacre was run out, the consensus of opinion seems to be that the batsman bad regained the crease before the wicket-keeper, keen at his job. had gone through the necessary procedure for a “run out” decision. Dacre himself says that in regaining the crease he had a loot to spuim. Most i,I the visitors, too. have indie.''.ted Hint, in their opinion. Dacre was,unlucky to be given “out,” but cue of their number, Oldfield, who was fielding near the umpire near the batsman’s end, tonsiders that ■ "e decision . was a correct- one.

The umpire (Mr D. M’Kenr.ie) when asked tt give his views about- the matter. made the following statement: “In my opinion the hails wore ofl before Dacre had regained nis crease. While the demonstration was going on. Oldfield, who was lidding near to the position in which 1 was standing at square leg. said to me: “Don’t you worry: the man is out. llieie some suggestion then that Dane should he recalled, hut Oldiieid made a remark to the effect that that should not he done, as there was »o question about the man being out. I am convinced in my own mind that the bans were off before Dacre had hi-- bat on the ground. ”! was. and am. sorry lot* Dame, and would have liked to see him carry on. But an umpire is chosen to de(ide points so that the rules of cricket are adhered to. and I can say my decision was given honestly. No man 1--infallible. Every man is liable to make a mistake. But 1 honestly do not think that I made a mistake, though I regret very min-h that a section of the spectators told me in very plain words that they disagreed with inv decision.

‘•Knowing what an attraiaive batsman Dacre is. what lie had done in the first Test match, and realising how lunllv a stand was required -it- the time to stop the rot. I would have more than been pleased if he could have continued. But in my honest opinion he was out. and 1 said si. Would any fair-minded man, who lias the inteiesl of any sport at heart, think much of a man if lie did otherwise !’ VISITING MANAGER'S VIEW. Brief reference to the action of a section of llk* spectators when Dacre was given out was made by Air Cochrane." manager of the visiting team. “I very much regret the demonstration against the umpire.” he sank •‘Whether lie was right or wrung, the demonstration was unwarranted, and more particularly as the umpiie is known as a man of unimpeachable character. After all, the umpire K there for the particular purpose oi umpiring, and nobody should he in a better position to judge. Personally 1 think the man was out. 1 was only a spectator, but whether my opinion is of any value I do not know.”