Cricket Betting Site Betway
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By fredfertang
  • 1 Post By Midwinter

Thread: Cuan McCarthy - Guilty or Not Guilty?

  1. #1
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Europe, on the outside looking in
    Posts
    20,069

    Cuan McCarthy - Guilty or Not Guilty?

    Cuan McCarthy - Guilty or Not Guilty?

    One of the first of the to be no balled from square leg in the 1950s Cuan McCarthy is a convicted chucker, but after weighing the evidence Martin is far from convinced
    zorax likes this.

  2. #2
    International 12th Man Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,604
    Standards are different. Half the finger spinners going round now would have been no-balled into oblivion back in the 50s.

  3. #3
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,607
    Thanks for the article it is a very good to read.

    But there seems to be a trend here.

    Geoffrey Griffin, Charlie Griffith and now McCarthy are regarded by the author as being hard done by.

    Are they exceptions or does the author regard the umpires interpretation of the laws at the time as incorrect?

    Does he regard Meckiff, Rorke, Lock etc as similiarly hard done by ?

    A possible future article on the whole chucking episode back then perhaps ?
    Last edited by Midwinter; 05-04-2015 at 02:49 AM.
    Hurricane likes this.

  4. #4
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Europe, on the outside looking in
    Posts
    20,069
    I'm as against illegal bowling as the next man, and Griffith and Griffin (who is my next subject) certainly seem to me to have thrown and likewise Tony Lock. Locky was a different case of course as he was a slow bowler and, at the end and beginning of his career had an action that was as fair as it was undoubtedly unfair in the middle, and he accepted that.

    Griffin was treated absolutely appallingly in my opinion. We live in a more enlightened world now, but that was still no excuse to subject the post war suspects to the witch hunts that the ridiculously worded law allowed (a point I made in the piece about Harold Rhodes) and the inconsistency offends my sense of justice too - one or two of the old school umpires were undoubtedly ****s of the highest order

    I'm still cogitating about doing another piece to sum up after Griffin and Lock - I would like to but to do so I'd like to get hold of the names who were on the list of suspects but who were never actually called - Peter Loader must have been one, but there were others too. One day I'll have the time to camp out in the Lord's library for a few days, and it may have to wait until then!


  5. #5
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,607
    Thanks for responding. (I probably meant Rhodes instead of Griffin).

    It was an interesting time, especially as there is the current crackdown on suspect actions.
    There was also the crackdown mandated by the authorities in the early 1890's or was it the 1900's.

    Look forward to seeing the trophies from your Lord's hunting trips.
    Last edited by Midwinter; 05-04-2015 at 07:45 AM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Harold Rhodes - Guilty or Not Guilty?
    By fredfertang in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-03-2015, 01:40 PM
  2. Charlie Griffith - Guilty or Not Guilty?
    By fredfertang in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20-03-2015, 09:45 PM
  3. He is not guilty!!!
    By NikhilN in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 13-06-2005, 04:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •