Touchy "Touchline"

NZ Truth, Issue 136, 25 January 1908, Page 3

Touchy "Touchline"

Still Wriggling. Touchy "Touchline," of the "Free Lance," is still wriggling m a fruitless attempt to get out of the pit he dug for himself and thought by distorting the views of his correspondent, and suppressing material facts which are evidently contained m the correspondent's letter, to make his -case . good. It is plain to those who read between the lines that "Touchline" is writhing; and Squirming under the laslv of his adversary, who must have cut him to thc quick, seeing that "Touchline" declines to publish the whole letter, but contents himself with distorting his corresponuent's views arid endeavoring .to bolster up his arguments—or rather assertions—by abusing his castigator.' "Touchline" has not even Sense enough to come m out of the wet by dropping his silly attitude, but, like a'small boy to whom a nauseous dose of medicine has been administered as a corrective, keeps yelling out."it's nasty," while, at the same time, he endeavors to convince his readers that he relishes the dose. But "Touchline" only insults the intelligence of his readers if he considers they can be gulled so easily. "Touchline" says that charity is not likely to benefit by his correspondent's challenge, and incidentally adds that- it is a case for the said correspondent of "heads I win, tails you lose." Now, how can "Touchline" make such a foolish statement. In 'either case the correspondent does not stand to win anything, whereas his proposition—not challenge-^which is a perfectly reasonable one to make (seeing that "Touchline," who claims to have been a bowler and fieldsman, characterised his castigator as a bowler of "no class," although -he did not claim any skill m that direction) is designed to benefit charity. "Touchline's" correspondent only made one mistake m the proposition—and that was a grevious one—to suppose that charity would ever come from "Touchline." Oh, dear, no ! ''Touchlijie" does not possess a charitable disposition m any form, consequently where there is a prospect of "shelling out" "Touchline" goes into his shell at once. At anyrate "Touchline," by his despicable action, has proved himself to be—out of his own mouth— a shuffler ; he has by his latest attitude had to confess that he is afraid to jmeet the man he traduced under the I same conditions upon which he based, his ridiculous assertion. Because a I man has the courage to toll a joke [against himself "Touchline" must I needs say he is "no class" as a bowl-

er.- If the same argument were, applied to some of the best cricketers known they would, according to "Touchline," be "no class", as bowlers. Even Johnny _, Briggs used to delight m telling 'hp'w,.- whilst playing m a 'village.'match'iri Bedfordshire., he was slogged ; for sixes continually, I and Eobby Peel was punished by I Frank Lugg, at Bramhall Lane, to the extent of a, possible m one over, and again at Halifax by Mr T. C. O'Brien. The same with old "Bill" Howell, the New South Wales bee farmer. And yet "Touchline," on his own showing, would brand Peel, Briggs and Howell, three of the finest bowlers m the history of the. game, as "no class" because , they each once had a possible scored from them m one over. "Touchline" .by thc line of deduction he has followed, has shown overwhelming qualification for ; a position ori the selection committee, - pf which body he would make an ideal member and become a shinine. light. "Scout" is more anxious than ever to see "Touchlin*" publish his correspondent's letter m full but that wily individual has, I think, sufficient knowledge of his castigator to know that journalistic etiquette forbids him- replying to distortions, and "Touchline" seeks reLf uge under distortions, knowing xfull well that pnce he publishes the letter, he will receive -a further dose of corrective medicine. In last Saturday's "Evening Post,' ' "Over," who was. the Originator of the boundary coritroverisy, and who has been playr j ing , the part, of spectator since December 14, returns to the attack with evident relish, and clean bowls "Touchline" with his first delivery ; he tn en inflicts a little sting with his L ail by crediting "Touchline" with a knowledge of local cricket. It now reiriairis for "Scout" to show that the "knight" of the "Free Lance" knows even less of New .Zealand cricket than he does of English conditions. By the way, "Touchline" will now* accuse me of a breach of "journalistic etiquette" m referring to his remarks through these columns. "Touchline" and his editorial chief evidently believe that they are the only pair who are acquainted .with "journalistic etiquet|te," the ..former proves it by suppressing a letter after asking for it, And the latter by allowing his subordinate to niake assertions which are contrary to fact. "Free Lapce," m the .opinion of the aforementioned "bogus knight," . means tying up their adversary's weapon whilst they hammer him with a club. "Touchline" writes, "This hit of Clement Hill's is claimed to be the finest one ever seen m Wellington, the 'ball travelling fast and low off a characteristic drive by 'the South Australian,, left-hander, and just skimming the top of the fence on the Kent Terrace side of the Reserve. "Scout" begs to differ with "Touchline's" assertion, and to inform that writer, who is usually barking up* the wrong tree, that he is, as usual, a long way out. Away back m the eighties N. W. Werru eclipsed Hill's performance, not once only, but many times. Playing with . his own eleven, on one occasion, against the members of a visiting Opera Company, the big j fellow drove a ball out of the ground land it did not. drop until past the Caledonian Hotel, and he repeated the performance twice during the same afternoon, and m many match- ! es during his cricketing -career Werry made hits out of the ground beside which Clem Hill's achievement looks very ■■ small. Another Wellingtonian,/ Harry Lawson,- now of Auckland, at a later period, drove a ball which landed alongside the houses m Kent Terrace, a much bigger hit than the one "Touchline" claims as the "fineest ever seen m Wellington." "Touchline" may claim to know as much about the game, locally, as any one m Wellington, but he cannot substantiate his claim. Should he desire to record any other achievements he had better make enquiry from someone who knows a ' little more than he does. By the way, "Touchline," recently, when referring to some remarks by . "Legbreak" m the Dominoion" quoted "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." "Touchline" should now realise that "crass ignorance" is even more dangerous, and by this time he should ; feelingly aealisc the meaning ofi "Fools rush m where angels fear to! tread." A last word of advice to "Touchline," who, by his ridiculous display, has proved his. utter incompetence as an, umpire, and his unfitness for the office he occupies, is to endeavor to realise that a sportsman's motto is, "A fair field for all, and no favor." That is the Alpha and Omega of sportsmanship.