Lives in Cricket No 45 - Brief Candles 2

71 No-ball! the victory in their second innings. The immediate reaction to the no-balling of Frank Pitcher is illuminating. Hugh Trumble, sole selector of the Victoria side, took an equivocal view: ‘I saw him at Collingwood only last Saturday and I was satisfied with his action. Of course, I was at a distance, while Crockett was closer to him and therefore in a better position to judge … Pitcher has never [before] been ‘called’, as far as I know. I say again, as far as I could see, Pitcher’s delivery was all right, though it was, no doubt, open to argument.’ 47 Others were less cagey. The Sydney Morning Herald supported the umpires’ decisions, commenting that ‘Evidently [Pitcher’s] delivery is akin to that of the baseball pitcher rather than the cricket bowler’, while even the Melbourne newspapers were less than wholly sympathetic. The Age described the delivery that had been no-balled by Young as ‘an undeniable throw’, while The Leader commented that ‘there is no question about the umpires being right, as Pitcher undoubtedly throws’. Both The Leader and The Australasian made the point that it was unfortunate that Pitcher’s bowling had been allowed to pass unchallenged in District cricket for many years: the former was explicit in saying that this latter point ‘simply proves that the umpiring in club matches must be terribly lax, as Pitcher throws beyond question … Umpires seem to think that it doesn’t matter how things go in club cricket, which is a big mistake, and it is to be hoped that the example set by Crockett in this case will not be lost upon club 47 Ballarat Star , 6 February 1911. This is what all the fuss was about. Maybe the umpires had a point?