Cricket.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 43, 27 April 1901, Page 21

Cricket.

I have been invited to discuss the reversal of the finding of the Third-class Championship Committee of the Cricket Association in the Wesley - Phoenix match, but space forbids this week, at any rate. The Wellington and Midland teams have been declaied equal winners of the Senior Championship, and the Midland A team has won the Junior Championship, all their matches having resulted in wins The averages of Tucker and Upham for the past sea&on are inteiosting Cup batting Tuckei 3."5 37 for nine innings Representative batting Tucker, 27 '20 for five innings, Upham, '29.7.') for five innings Cup bowling Upham, 31 wickets, at an average of 8.70 Tucker, 33, 8 81. Representatr. c bowling Tucker, 24 wickets, 12.20 Upham, 11, 18.09 All matches Tucker, .57 wickets, 10 24, Upham, 40, 11.

The grounds at Miramar would be all the better if a mower were taken over them. There was a muster of between two and three hundred spectators at Miramar on Saturday, and the trouble experienced in handling the crowd proves that, under present conditions, it is not advisable to fix a senior match, in which there is any interest taken, to be played there. There is no way oi keeping the crowd back, except by stopping the game, and delays of that nature are vexatious alike both to the players and the fair-minded among the onlookers. The following extract from Rule 11 is quoted for the special benefit of the Melrose half-back. It is named (c), and reads. — "Being on the ground, docs not immediately get up," and is one of those instances where a referee is ordered to give a free kick by way of penalty. Some players consider it a hardship if the penalty is given against thorn for playing the ball while they are on the ground, but the sub-section goes further, and orders the free-kick to be given for the player not getting up at once. The case of the try scored by the Petone team against Oriental on Saturday has been the subject of much comment. In the case of a knock-on or throw forward, Rule 16 says — "The ball shall be at once brought back to where such infringement took place, and there put down." The Petone player fulfilled the conditions of the rule, even to the "at once," and, according to the way the local Referees' Association interprets the rulo the referee had no option but to let the play go on. In mv own opinion the Association have placed a wrong interpretation on this rule, through reading it literally. The w hole intent of the rules of the game is to penalise a player who breaks a law, but in the instance under notice the offending team undoubtedly got an advantage from their own breach, which should not be possible. The question is one that ought to be reconsidered by the Referees' Association.