Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Friday 5 December 1924
Dangerous Play
Denaby Decision Discussed in Australia
The Exchange Telegraph Company’s Melbourne correspondent states that Australian cricket circles express surprise that the M.C.C. upheld the much-discussed decision in a recent Denaby match, in giving out a left-handed batsman for changing over to play a ball in the manner of a right-handed batsman.
Two incidents are recalled in inter-State matches in which batsmen changed the bat from right to left-hand. Newspaper writers ask: If the decision stands, will Chapman be debarred from making the unorthodox, though delightful, one-hand strokes such as he displayed recently in the Sydney game?
The incident which caused such a discussion in South Yorkshire last August has now become world-wide, in the cricketing sense. The above message from Melbourne sets up a fresh train of thought following the M.C.C.’s decision.
What occurred to start such a commotion is briefly this: During the Yorkshire Council match between Denaby and Bullcroft Main, at Denaby on Thursday, August 14th last, James Crossley, the Denaby left-handed batsman, in attempting to play a ball pitched on the off by Brammer followed the ball with a right-handed stroke. He did not change his ground, and when the stroke was completed he was facing the wicket-keeper. On appeal for “dangerous play” and “obstructing the wicket-keeper,” he was given out for “impeding the wicket-keeper.”
The Yorkshire Council referred the matter to the M.C.C. for their decision, and the ruling authority upheld the umpire’s verdict.
Umpire Must Decide
One presumes, writes “Looker On,” that if a left-handed batsman can be given out under such circumstances, then a right-handed batsman would also be given out if he reversed the stroke. Now, it is being asked in the Commonwealth if known strokes of noted left-handed players are to be barred. They specifically refer to Chapman, the English player at present on tour. From what I can make of the question I think the whole matter will devolve upon whether the umpire considers any stroke dangerous and played in a manner likely to prevent the wicket-keeper carrying out his proper duties. Presumably the question would never arise unless the batsman actually followed the ball over the bowling crease, beyond which the wicket-keeper must not go until the ball has passed the wickets.
I do not suppose that the M.C.C. mean to bar any stroke from the game, providing it does not in itself constitute a dangerous stroke or impede the man behind the stumps. It is just one of those points which the commonsense of the umpire can decide.