Veteran allrounder Arnold Manders yesterday labelled Clay Smith as being "low" for making the appeal that led to what he considered a crucial and unfair dismissal during Saturday's Champion of Champions semi-final between Western Stars and St. David's at Lord's.

The incident occurred at an important stage in the match and possibly denied Stars the opportunity of batting their full 50 overs, and more importantly adding more runs to their eventual losing total of 229 all out.

St. David's crossed that score with four wickets in hand, and went on to clinch the Champions' title after Sunday's final against Willow Cuts was rained out.

Stars innings came to an abrupt end after 49.1 overs when Wilbur Burt was given out, as umpire Lester Harnett upheld a vociferous and surprising appeal by Smith, captain of St. David's.

Recalling the incident Manders, who scored 72, said he had calmly played forward without intending to make a run. The non-striker Burt, he added, kicked the ball towards Smith so that he could retrieve it and enable the game to proceed without delay. But to his dismay the St. David's captain appealed and Burt was given out for obstruction.

"I really think it was an unsportsmanlike gesture, in fact I thought it was low. I don't know how low you can get because nobody was attempting to make a run. The non-striker was only kicking the ball to a fielder who happened to be Clay who happened to appeal. You don't play cricket that way," said Manders.

"I wonder how many times they have kicked a ball away and in the direction of a fielder and have had something said, not many times or none at all I bet. That incident cut us short of five balls.

"`I am quite sure that the law pertaining to obstruction by a batsman comes into play when a person is interfering with play while attempting a run, but this wasn't the case because nobody ever attempted to make a run. The appeal wasn't called for and all Burt was doing was trying to speed play along. St. David's had already been deducted overs for their slow overs rate."

While admitting to be both upset and stunned by the antics of Smith, Manders was also surprised to see the appeal withheld by the umpire whom he regarded as among the fairest on the Island.

"I really think he shouldn't have accepted the appeal at all," said Manders.

Smith, however, vehemently defended his actions yesterday and said that the appeal was justified as proven by the response of umpire Harnett.

Smith's version of the incident contradicted that of Manders, the Islanders' skipper claiming that Burt was not aiming to steer the ball in his direction for collection.

"What I did was within the rules of the game. Manders had hit the ball directly towards the non-striker and they both hesitated to run, and upon deciding not to make a run I noticed Manders was some five or six feet outside of his crease," recalled Smith.

"It was only then that I decided to attack the ball and attempt to run him out. If the non-striker had gentlemanly attempted to kick the ball to me I would not have appealed, but when he deliberately kicked the ball beyond my reach it basically took the possibility of a run-out away. The ball wasn't kicked directly at me, it was kicked away from me to eliminate any chance of a run-out and by the rules of the game Mr. Harnett had no choice but to give him out.

"There is no controversy here, it was something that happened and the umpire was in position to give a clear and definitive ruling . . . and he was right."