Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 27, No. 4. 1964.

Cricket Pitch Attack Suppressed By Press?

Cricket Pitch Attack Suppressed By Press?

Pitch-hacking has been in the news lately.

The story goes that some scungy anonymous louts tore up the sacred turf for the first cricket test in a savage outburst of meaningless destruction. "Sneak raiders" shrieked the Post, and went on to discuss the "atrocity" with characteristic insight and philosophic sweep. "Vandals" they were righteously labelled (the Post made sure of that; "vandal" always get a good emotional response), "vandals" who "achieved nothing". The Post certainly made sure that the act would achieve nothing—it effectively blocked all attempts to publish statements discussing supposed ethical questions involved in such "objectionable" acts. After all, we can't have a newspaper publishing divergent viewpoints can we? It may lead people to believe in that old slogan of the past . . . "freedom of the Press"; indeed, it may even give rise to something as ugly and unhealthy as discussion! In any case, what the hell has ethics got to do with cricket? Ethics ain't politics an' politics ain't cricket an . . .

Tradition has it that controveries are good for democratic politics; they clarify issues and force politicians to defend their policies and reflect on "principles". Keith, of course, is a man of tradition. "The public (this is Keith) would regret the act of vandalism (that word again!) in an unnecessary, objectional and distasteful affront to a team of visiting sportsmen." One wonders whether the numerous Bantu who have been beaten, imprisoned or separated from their families regard the white South Africans as "sportsmen". Being a "sportsman" now seems to remove one from ail moral responsibility. One cannot view these South Africans as human beings capable of moral decisions but only as some vague metaphysical collections of "sportsmen". This is enough to excuse them of the policies of a government they have elected!

There is an interesting theory about the pitch. Some "experts" who actually studied (empirically) the pitch on that fateful Friday morning claim that it was effectively ruined. Indeed the NZBC in its early morning news coverage gave the impression that there would he no play until another wicket had been prepared. Even the Post let the cat out of the hag (quote) "at first sight it (the pitch) seemed impossible to use . .." Later, when a "policy" decision was taken it was suddenly announced that "those responsible for the damage left 22 yards clear between the diggings."

Salient has received this article anonymously. We feel that it contains some interesting ideas about the cricket pitch episode, so we reproduce it here for our readers to see.

If this theory is true then the "policy" decision enabled all true lovers of this manly skill to revel in a "prearranged draw." Even if it is not true it is still a good theory. After all the alternative would be rather embarrassing wouldn't it? Imagine the headlines it would get in Asia? "Direct Action Against Fascist Lackies" or "Kiwi Takes Stand; Test Transferred" or perhaps just "Kiwi Strikes Apartheid". It may even suggest to the Asian that the Kiwi lakes the plight of depressed millions seriously. In any case you can be sure that the Afro-Asians understand the interdependence of sport, politics and morality.

Whatever the actual state of the pitch, more fun was to follow. The Kiwi Police with all its cunning and subtlety was carefully gathering evidence. A poor student who unfortunately had the guts to express approval of the "deed" was duly charged. Two points are worthy of note.

Firstly the Police, crafty fellows, prosecuted under an obscure "regulation" and not under the Crimes Act. This meant that the prosecution did not have to show "criminal intent" on the part of the defendant (it would be rather embarrassing for our glorious Legal System if the defendant claimed "moral intenet") but only that the defendant had transgressed the regulation.

In short, the Police carefully quelled the possibility of a learned magistrate being forced into making a moral decision. Indeed it reinforced the idea that (here were no moral issues involved.

Secondly the evidence. The Police had only poor hearsay evidence. Even the most junior crown prosecutor knows that this is just not good enough. There wasn't a scrap of evidence to connect the defendant with the supposed "crime", The Police knew this and yet they still prosecuted! The "case" was of course dismissed. But the damage had been done; the New Zealand press saw to that. They cleverly "arranned" their news coverage in such a way to suggest that the prosecution failed simply because of lack of evidence.

Chief Superintendent W. S. Craigie (as reported in the Post) had an interesting comment to make: "Unfortunately an officer did not happen to be around at the crucial moment." I have it on good authority that the pitch was "fixed" while the Police were busy scuffling with perves in the Basin toilets! Police "evidence" was also well astray. The pilch was dug with a common garden trowel not with a pick axe as the Police claimed. "Experts" suggested that the deed would have taken about one hour to complete. It took 45 seconds in fact.

Keith must take the honours in concluding this episode of "moral enlightenment". Sayeth Keith: "I am sorry anyone should so offend against the general conception in this country of fair play." So sayeth Keith; stalesman, scholar, man of letters. And this is what we in New Zealand stand for is it Keith? We Kiwis stand for miserable little while supremists disguised as cricketers or rugby hearties who flock to the polls every so often to endorse their governments policies of forced domination? Perhaps Sharpeville is an example of Keith's "fair play"? What marvellous sport it must have been as the armed police mowed down the defenceless blacks. Just like a game of cricket. Pitches aren't dug up with the intention of changing your views Keith or your fellow Kiwi cricketers; that would be far too optimistic. They are dug up simply to show the Bantu back in South Africa (via the "underground" news service) that there are some members of the great arrogant white race who are prepared to sneak out and break the law on their behalf.

The Kiwi may not understand the miserable little protest but you can he sure the Bantu will.