CRICKET.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2582, 16 November 1893, Page 4

CRICKET.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — Kindly allow me space once more for a few words in reply to “No Catch.” Your correspondent kindly tells me that there are eleven rules relating to umpires. Now, Sir, he must surely think you have plenty of space, and 1 very little consideration, if lie expected me to quote all the rules of umpiring. “No Catch” infers that 1 have got hold of an obsolete rule, but my authorities are : Mr A. G. Steel on Umpires in Badminton, and Lillywhite’a Annual, 1892. Possibly your correspondent may have heard of one of these authorities. True, law 43 says “ when umpires disagree the actual state of things shall continue,” but the umpire uevel ’ had a chance to disagree This is provided for by law. “In anv~ ease iii which * n um P ire “ , i J i shall appeal unable to give a decision .. ' - the to the other umpire.” In ‘this ciiSe umpire was able to give his decision, and did so,and once an umpire gives his decision it is final. For your correspondent to say the other umpire would have given “ not out ” and that Postlethwaite would, thei'efore, have returned to the crease, is, to say the least of it, absurd, and shows that No Catch knows even less of the laws of cricket lhau I gave him credit for. Now, sir, I think this correspondence has gone quite far enough, on my part at any rate, and 1 expect you do also. For one thing, I object to replying to letters of a man who writes under a “ nom de plume.” If your correspondent wishes to back his opinion 1 am quite willing to leave it to any well known authority on cricket, and to back mine.—l arn, etc., B. R. Macdonald.