providing your own umpires

TheDrog

I was reading today that those teams who must provide their own umpire for matches will be docked 5 points rather than the 5% it was last year meaning that any team who loses without an umpire will be lucky not to finish the match on minus points, surely it's time those responsible realised that this idea has been a complete failure.

MartyMarty

I reckon players should be allowed to umpire at all levels. The standard of umpiring at Senior levels is pretty sh*t - and clubs would save a fair few quid in fees if they could provide their own. Unless the standard of umpiring in the LCU improves dramatically - it's unfair to ask clubs to fork out for such a sub standard service.

Beasty

MartyMarty wrote: »

The standard of umpiring at Senior levels is pretty sh*t

I am sure anyone who posts here who also umpires would like to hear a little more as to what basis you form this view on. Are you a player? Have you come across some specific examples of such poor umpiring?

I am sure, as in all walks of life, there are a range of abilities out there, and individual umpires will have good as well as bad days. My understanding is they are volunteers, who give up their time for little more than their expenses. I presume most of the umpires you are referring to have played the game themselves.

Don't get me wrong, you may have some perfectly good examples to back up your statement, but it looks a little odd when a first-time poster starts off with a rant like that

TheDrog

MartyMarty wrote: »

I reckon players should be allowed to umpire at all levels. The standard of umpiring at Senior levels is pretty sh*t - and clubs would save a fair few quid in fees if they could provide their own. Unless the standard of umpiring in the LCU improves dramatically - it's unfair to ask clubs to fork out for such a sub standard service.

These teams are already being asked to get people out to umpire for the lower division matches and most are struggling to do it, they won't have anymore luck getting anyone out in the higher divisions

MartyMarty

Beasty wrote: »

Have you come across some specific examples of such poor umpiring?

I have only played a handful of Senior games over the years - really only to make up the numbers. However - I have watched more than my fair share. I have seen a number of examples - too many to mention unfortunately - but here are some of them that I've seen more than others:

• Umpires not understanding the "No Ball" rule for full tosses - numerous examples of slow/spin bowlers being called for no balls when the ball is above waist height - but below shoulder height
• Blatant favouritism shown to pros / internationals who get more than their fair share of "benefit of the doubt" decisions
• A huge number of extremely poor run out & stumping decisions - on many occasions I've seen umpires not even looking when the wicket is broken
• Very poor consistency from the same umpire throughout a game in interpreting LBW decisions
• Players being given out caught behind off their pads / thighpad
• Not paying attention to fielders inside / outside the circle during fielding restrictions

I'd be happy to hear from other players / umpires on this.

Bobo148

MartyMarty wrote: »

I have only played a handful of Senior games over the years - really only to make up the numbers. However - I have watched more than my fair share. I have seen a number of examples - too many to mention unfortunately - but here are some of them that I've seen more than others:

• Umpires not understanding the "No Ball" rule for full tosses - numerous examples of slow/spin bowlers being called for no balls when the ball is above waist height - but below shoulder height
• Blatant favouritism shown to pros / internationals who get more than their fair share of "benefit of the doubt" decisions
• A huge number of extremely poor run out & stumping decisions - on many occasions I've seen umpires not even looking when the wicket is broken
• Very poor consistency from the same umpire throughout a game in interpreting LBW decisions
• Players being given out caught behind off their pads / thighpad
• Not paying attention to fielders inside / outside the circle during fielding restrictions

I'd be happy to hear from other players / umpires on this.

Sounds like you should enlist. Or are you happy to talk the talk, but not walk the walk?

Beasty

The interesting thing I feel about these comments is typically it is only the umpire and batsman who are in a position to best judge most of these matters (although I accept that in many cases the wicket-keeper and bowler can also be in a good position).

I am not sure, in the absence of TV replays, how someone who by his own admission has only played a "handful" of senior games can act as judge and jury on this one.

MartyMarty

Beasty wrote: »

I am not sure, in the absence of TV replays, how someone who by his own admission has only played a "handful" of senior games can act as judge and jury on this one.

So Beasty - by that logic - only people who have extensive experience playing Senior cricket should be qualified to comment? Does that extend to only people who have extensive experience playing Senior cricket being allowed to umpire?

Beasty

MartyMarty wrote: »

So Beasty - by that logic - only people who have extensive experience playing Senior cricket should be qualified to comment? Does that extend to only people who have extensive experience playing Senior cricket being allowed to umpire?

Not at all - what I would say is those who have evidence to back up their assertions are best placed to comment. I would have thought the best people to umpire would typically be ex-players, but this is not an absolute necessity. In soccer, I cannot think of an example of an ex-pro getting to the top referreeing. Cricket is one sport where it does happen (probably because you can be as good, if not better, an umpire in your 60s as in your 40s)

It's easy for armchair critics to take a swipe at people such as umpires and soccer referees, but if in practice those individuals have not done the job themselves they tend to be the least qualified to comment.

Unfortunately TV coverage has tended to make us all "experts" in sports and their rules/laws. I for one claim a basic understanding of the rules of many sports, but their practical application cannot be learned from a TV screen.

I would add that I have made no comment whatsover about the quality of umpiring because I am not in a position to comment, having never umpired or played the game beyond school level.

d'Oracle

MartyMarty wrote: »

I have only played a handful of Senior games over the years - really only to make up the numbers. However - I have watched more than my fair share. I have seen a number of examples - too many to mention unfortunately - but here are some of them that I've seen more than others:

• Umpires not understanding the "No Ball" rule for full tosses - numerous examples of slow/spin bowlers being called for no balls when the ball is above waist height - but below shoulder height
• Blatant favouritism shown to pros / internationals who get more than their fair share of "benefit of the doubt" decisions
• A huge number of extremely poor run out & stumping decisions - on many occasions I've seen umpires not even looking when the wicket is broken
• Very poor consistency from the same umpire throughout a game in interpreting LBW decisions
• Players being given out caught behind off their pads / thighpad
• Not paying attention to fielders inside / outside the circle during fielding restrictions

I'd be happy to hear from other players / umpires on this.

A couple of those points are REALLY unfair to criticise umpires on IMO.
Without the benefit of replays umpiring lookss a really tough job.

MartyMarty

d'Oracle wrote: »

A couple of those points are REALLY unfair to criticise umpires on IMO.
Without the benefit of replays umpiring lookss a really tough job.

Which ones - and why?

d'Oracle

Would have thought this obvious, my bad.

Run outs: Split second decision made while attempting to watch two things at once. At international level these are all replayed unless its a no-mans land situation.

Pads: Again split second decision, based on a really narrow margin of error.
Have you seen hotspot? That is the kind of detail the TV has to go into to see the truth in these calls. I have seen slow motion replays that were nigh on impossible to call.

Inconsistent LBW: Admittedly this could go both ways, but its a visual observation, two very similar incidents can look quite different when seen from the other side of a track.

D3PO

getting off topic a bit here. On the level of umpriing I wouldnt say im overly qualified to comment, but seeing LCU umpires standing in line with the stumps when trying to judge a run out is something Ive seen, Ive also seen them give LBW wround the wicket pitching outside the line. Now Im not tarring all umps with the same brush but certainly the level across the board isnt wher eit needs to be.

As for the original topic. I think the LCU need to loosen the rules below senior level. Expecting a team in div 13 to have an ump every game for example or to be down 25% is just crazy. We are going to end up in a position where teams win every game or perhaps lose 1 game and not get promoted because they cant field an umpire, that makes no sense and doesnt help the league in anyway.

TheDrog

D3PO wrote: »

getting off topic a bit here. On the level of umpriing I wouldnt say im overly qualified to comment, but seeing LCU umpires standing in line with the stumps when trying to judge a run out is something Ive seen, Ive also seen them give LBW wround the wicket pitching outside the line. Now Im not tarring all umps with the same brush but certainly the level across the board isnt wher eit needs to be.

As for the original topic. I think the LCU need to loosen the rules below senior level. Expecting a team in div 13 to have an ump every game for example or to be down 25% is just crazy. We are going to end up in a position where teams win every game or perhaps lose 1 game and not get promoted because they cant field an umpire, that makes no sense and doesnt help the league in anyway.

:eek: A post that relates to the original topic

d'Oracle

Do lower division Umpires have to still be registered as Umpires or something like that?

D3PO

d'Oracle wrote: »

Do lower division Umpires have to still be registered as Umpires or something like that?

they have to be on an approved list. Not sure exactly what that means

d'Oracle

Cant imagine there is an abundance of folks on that list.....?

D3PO

d'Oracle wrote: »

Cant imagine there is an abundance of folks on that list.....?

wouldnt have thought so and even then im not sure how much there in in approving somebody. We played a game and the "approved" umpire didnt even know how to signal extras.

Every bye was signalled as a no ball and leg byes were signalled as byes oh and every boundary was signalled as 4 byes aswell :eek::eek: now if you cant even get the scoring signals right can anything else be expected to be right ?

d'Oracle

D3PO wrote: »

Every bye was signalled as a no ball and leg byes were signalled as byes oh and every boundary was signalled as 4 byes aswell :eek::eek: now if you cant even get the scoring signals right can anything else be expected to be right ?

YYYYYYYMCA.

Sorry.

gumbynation

What a buch of turkeys.
this rule has to be one of the most ridiculous of its kind with regards to the lower leagues in the LCU.

the cricket from div 7 down is pretty much at a social level anyway. So its pointless...Does the LCU think this 'measure' will improve the standard of umpiring? dont be daft!!!! its the same people that would have been umpiring except now they are on a token list and will proabbly be none to enamoured having to give up a full day on the weekend to NOT play cricket... Ah sure the kids/groceries/dog/wife can be put on hold so you can go umpire a game of cricket.

It suits big clubs who have lots of people/old boys with a 'club mentality' who are happy to pitch in and umpire but what about clubs with 2 or 3 teams only and struggling to field 11 players each week? sorry not all teams have the same setups/club memberships as the likes of merrion/clontarf/north county....

Frankly if people want to umpire... They do, and i think the LCU umpires are grand.
I only tend to see them in various cups games but from my experience they are WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY better than having players officiate.
Today i played a game in div 7 and we had a direct hit runout with a batman 2 ft short given not out.
That simply does not happen with LCU umpires

back on topic....
Good rule for very top tier cricket.
Stupid rule for pretty much everyone else who just wants play cricket for fun.
muppets
/end rant

Renno

We need to remember why this came about.

The behaviour in junior matches became so poor in 2007 (measured by the number of disciplinary offences that were being reported to the Junior Branch, and particularly with one infamous match that nearly became a mass brawl ) that the thinking caps were put on. This procedure was threatened, but if behaviour improved, then it would be deferred. However 2008 was no better, so umpires were made mandotory in 2009 (and behavious improved).

But.... it is a huge pain. I'd disagree with the comments about it being easier for big clubs. Surely every club has to find an umpire for each 11 players they have, it's the same ratio however big you are. Believe me finding five or six umpires every weekend is a nightmare. I see from the results on the LCU site, that Leinster have been been docked a good few points across the teams, and many other clubs have as well. Can't really see what the answer is though. Talking to our captains and most would rather just get docked the points (ie it's only a bit of fun anyway, and why ruin someone's weekend by making them umpire?)

Brian_D

This is a ridiculous rule for any game below Division 8. Taking 20 percent of the maximum available points off a team for not providing an umpire is scandalous. Its hard enough getting 11 guys out, never mind asking a twelfth to watch an awful standard of cricket for 8 hours. Having to do it twice this season has already ruined my summer. It will cause leagues to be won by the wrong teams, will drive people away from the game, and will not solve anything. Also the rule is totally biased towards the larger more established clubs that have alot more older people hanging around.

Renno

No one likes this, but was is the solution to appalling behaviour by polayers in junior matches? Rather than just knock it, come up with a few answers.

As I said above, it is rubbish that it is biased towards the bigger clubs. According to the LCU site, 12 clubs have so far been penalised, Leinster, Sandyford and Trinity three times; Old Belvedere, The Hills, Merrion and Clontarf twice and Knockharley, Terenure, Malahide, North County and Pembroke just the once. I can't really see any pattern there at all, except that all clubs are finding it tough

D3PO

Renno to a certain point you are right however, there needs to be a balance between what the rule is there for and its impact on a game.

a team could win every game this season and finish with sub 80% and potentially not win their league. Whats the benefit of that ?

as somebody whos played 16 games without umpires over the past season, I can honestly say Ive not seen any issues as a result of not having an "offical" umpire. There may be a reason for this but surely it needs to be reviewed as I dont think its delivering what it should

djimi

Id genuinely love to meet the genius who came up with that rule. Our thirds have enough fun getting 11 players out at times, let alone a 12th who is willing to drive 50 miles just to umpire.

This kind of things works alright in hockey where you have short games and people usually standing around either waiting to play or just finished playing who are willing to help out, but in cricket its unworkable.

djimi

If its discipline they are worried about then why dont they just start clamping down more severely on more of the hot headed pricks that generally cause trouble? We all know who is going to be the trouble makers when we go to any given club, so why arent they dealt with more harshly?

Ive been playing cricket for a long time, and from what Ive seen the last couple of seasons having designated umpires has made no difference whatsoever. By and large we never have any issues when playing matches, usually both sets of teams umpire matches fairly and everything goes along in good spirits, but from what Ive seen the guys who used to kick off at the umpires before are still doing it now, so nothing has changed much in that respect.

I can appreciate that something needed to be done if discipline was seen as an issue, but I hardly think that this was ever going to improve things.

Gordon Gecko

Speaking as a Division 11 captain, I can tell you that at almost every game I've played this season and last season neither club has provided an umpire and just done it the old fashioned way and then stuck down a name on the book by mutual consent. The only instance in which someone has come as a specialist umpire were in the case of injury. That said I've played matches which have descended into near riot due to blatant cheating by a player/umpire but agree that it's ridiculous that Michael Sharp and co. with the LCU expect this rule to be seriously enforced

TrueDub

I suspect that the situation Gordon describes above happens more often than not.

On the fundamental issue, players need to have their voices heard. It's too late for the 2010 season, but all clubs are entitled to raise issues and send delegates to the Junior Branch AGM during the winter. Here clubs can provide input to the operation of junior cricket - this is the way to get things changed, but it requires players & clubs to do more than simply complain, they need to determine a better approach, then raise it at the AGM & get a motion passed to ensure the regulations reflect the wishes of the people who play cricket.

Without players and clubs taking the responsibility to raise items that are unsatisfactory, nothing will change. Players do have a voice, they just have to use it.

Renno

TrueDub wrote: »

On the fundamental issue, players need to have their voices heard. It's too late for the 2010 season, but all clubs are entitled to raise issues and send delegates to the Junior Branch AGM during the winter. Here clubs can provide input to the operation of junior cricket - this is the way to get things changed, but it requires players & clubs to do more than simply complain, they need to determine a better approach, then raise it at the AGM & get a motion passed to ensure the regulations reflect the wishes of the people who play cricket.

Without players and clubs taking the responsibility to raise items that are unsatisfactory, nothing will change. Players do have a voice, they just have to use it.

Here ,here. At last year's Junior AGM, the consensual view was that there was no point having this rule in place if it was enforced, hence the points deductions in place this year. But only about 20 people bothered to turn up. It's funny isn't it - the people who put in the time and make an effort are those whose views get to shape the way the game is run.

Every club has a fairly large number of delegates who can attend, so if you feel strongly about junior cricket, turn up next year and change the way the sport is run.

D3PO

TrueDub wrote: »

I suspect that the situation Gordon describes above happens more often than not.

Ok so we should condone cheating ? Because no matter what way you sugar coat it thats what it is. So the clubs that play by the rules no matter how stupid they are give teams that cheat a 20% headstart for the season by teams that put false upmiring names down.

Brilliant, just brilliant

TrueDub

D3PO wrote: »

Ok so we should condone cheating ? Because no matter what way you sugar coat it thats what it is. So the clubs that play by the rules no matter how stupid they are give teams that cheat a 20% headstart for the season by teams that put false upmiring names down.

Brilliant, just brilliant

I didn't say it was right, just that it probably happens - I've no evidence either way.

There's a lot of people on this thread with strong feelings on this matter, and with ideas on how to change it. It really would benefit Leinster cricket if this passion and innovation was put to good use by people getting the regulations changed through the proper channels. Otherwise this is all just hot air.

Bobo148

TrueDub wrote: »

I didn't say it was right, just that it probably happens - I've no evidence either way.

I have lots of evidence from my club and others. I know that this happens.

TrueDub wrote: »

There's a lot of people on this thread with strong feelings on this matter, and with ideas on how to change it. It really would benefit Leinster cricket if this passion and innovation was put to good use by people getting the regulations changed through the proper channels. Otherwise this is all just hot air.

Hear, hear. Hot air indeed.

Gordon Gecko

D3PO wrote: »

Ok so we should condone cheating ? Because no matter what way you sugar coat it thats what it is. So the clubs that play by the rules no matter how stupid they are give teams that cheat a 20% headstart for the season by teams that put false upmiring names down.

Brilliant, just brilliant

Cheating? Complete overreaction. A player umpiring in his whites makes a poor decision = cheating, whereas the LCU and yourself believe that the same person wearing a white coat makes a poor decision = a poor decision. A white coat is not going to change how someone makes a decision. This rule is not about eliminating cheating and making things fairer, it simply seeks to make cheating by an individual wearing a white coat legitimate.

D3PO

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

Cheating? Complete overreaction. A player umpiring in his whites makes a poor decision = cheating, whereas the LCU and yourself believe that the same person wearing a white coat makes a poor decision = a poor decision. A white coat is not going to change how someone makes a decision. This rule is not about eliminating cheating and making things fairer, it simply seeks to make cheating by an individual wearing a white coat legitimate.

how is falsely submitting scorecards with wrong information to gain a 20% advantage not cheating ? Explain how thats an over reaction ?

as for a player umpring making a poor decision. thats not cheating unless its a concious effort on behalf of said umpire to give one team an advantage.

Im not nieve enough to think this doesnt happen on occasion but that could equally happen with anybody who umpires from any club not just player umpires, so this rule does SFA to address that.

djimi

I wouldnt call it cheating; Id call it evening out the score. Its a ridiculous rule thats completely unworkable, and if every team got together and decided to do the same thing then I wouldnt lose a minutes sleep over it. Losing 5 points out of a possible 30 for not being able to find someone willing to give up their Saturday/Sunday to umpire a division 10 match? What genius thought it was realistically going to work, seriously?

Just for the record, Im not condoning breaking any Leinster Cricket Union rules, and Im not saying it would be right to do so even if I do strongly disagree with it...

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

I wouldnt call it cheating; Id call it evening out the score. Its a ridiculous rule thats completely unworkable, and if every team got together and decided to do the same thing then I wouldnt lose a minutes sleep over it. Losing 5 points out of a possible 30 for not being able to find someone willing to give up their Saturday/Sunday to umpire a division 10 match? What genius thought it was realistically going to work, seriously?

Just for the record, Im not condoning breaking any Leinster Cricket Union rules, and Im not saying it would be right to do so even if I do strongly disagree with it...

problem is that some clubs are abiding by the rules others arent. the clubs that are abiding by it regardless how ludacris it is are being penalised

djimi

And thats why I said its not right, no matter how strongly I feel about it. The problem at the moment tho is that everyone is being penalised, especially the smaller clubs. We were lucky last season in that one of our lads broke his arm before the season and was willing to come along anyway to umpire, but this season its been a different story. How many clubs around are have a big enough pool of resources to be able to select 12 players for each team every week? If the league as a whole took a stance then it would resolve the issue.

Obviously as it stands with some conforming and others not its not at all fair.

TrueDub

djimi wrote: »

If the league as a whole took a stance then it would resolve the issue.

True - but they didn't. This regulation was in place in junior cricket last year, and obviously it wasn't raised with sufficient vigour at the AGM last winter. Trust me on this, as one who knows, the only way to get things changed is to have clubs in agreement at the AGM that something is wrong and should be changed. If this isn't done in a clear way, nothing changes.

djimi

Ah yeah I know, it was more a kneejerk reaction in my saying that. I know I will be pushing for a represntative from my club (me if necessary) to go to the AGM after this season to raise the point, and I hope most other clubs do as well.

I just hate the idea of a team losing the league or getting relegated because they were unable to find a 12th man to umpire for the season, that to me is just not cricket...

Firehen

With regards to the comment about teams 'cheating' by filling in a fictitious umpire, I'm glad most teams our club have played against this year have agreed to do so. Its simply too hard to find people willing to sacrifice their weekend to umpire a match they would otherwise be playing in. This goes for all clubs. I play at junior level for one of the big clubs in Leinster, and we've only been able to find umpire for one game (against opponents who have recently become notorious for enforcing this ridiculous rule).

Yes, falsifying umpire names may technically be 'cheating', but, at the end of the season, it gives a more accurate idea of what actually happened on the field and not simply which clubs have more bodies available on a weekend. This isn't the same as a slow over rate or violating club starrings. It simply does not affect the outcome of the game. As has been pointed out already, its the same people umpiring, only this way they can't play.

Sharpey and cronies really made a mess of this one, and are too stubborn to admit it. Its far too big a penalty for a rule that changes nothing on the field. I most definitely will be making sure my club let them know this before and at the AGM, and I strongly suggest all of you do the same.

D3PO

Firehen wrote: »

Yes, falsifying umpire names may technically be 'cheating', but, at the end of the season, it gives a more accurate idea of what actually happened on the field .

that makes no sense at all

team A falsifies details plays 10 games loses 2 and finishes with lets say 76%

team b likewise cant get umpires but sticks to the rules. team b wins 10 out of 10 unbeaten all season including 2 wins against team A BUT finishes behind team A because they were starting at a max point of 80%

how does that give an accurate idea of what happened on the field ?

cheating is cheating and falsifiying umpire names (regardless of how stupid this rule is)

Firehen

Stop this 'cheating is cheating' nonsense. Its tripe. The rule makes no sense. It does nothing to alleviate the problem it was put in place to solve. If there has been a decline in ill discipline at junior level, its sod all to do with the presence of a club appointed umpire. The only people being cheated are teams without an umpire playing against teams who are enforcing the rule. We've let opponents put down a false name, and they us.

If every team allow opponents without an umpire put down a false name, there's no ridiculous point deductions, and the scenario that you present doesn't manifest itself. If every team obeys the new rule religiously, then there are godawful stupid point deductions still dictating who finishes where.

Please don't reply with anymore 'cheating is cheating' sh!t. Its already tiresome. The rule is rubbish. It accomplishes nothing other than to spoil someone's weekend or to needlessly take points off teams who can't find an umpire. Nothing.

D3PO

are you slow ? i only ask becaue the concept of a team stealing 20% on another team who obeys by the rule but cannot supply an umpire themselves seems to beyond your comprehension.

our club abides by the rule regardless of how stupid it is. all our teams have been hit by a loss of points this season as a result becaue we cant get umpires, by us abiding by the rules teams are cheating us if they are conducting in the behaviour your condoning.

its cheating end of just becasue you dont like the term doesnt change it

Firehen

Sigh. Am I slow? What was the last thing I said at the end of my last post? Be a good boy and read it again. If not, we'll just keep going around in circles.

Look, clearly you feel the rule is worth obeying, and clearly I don't. My point is, and I'll make this as simple as it is, if we all obey the rule, as you do and as you are suggesting we all do, there will be an unfair advantage to the teams who can put out an umpire every game. If we all pretend to obey the rule, there is absolutely no unfair advantage to everyone and its all happy families. That is my point.

Until the rule is changed, I will support anyone who wants to put down a false umpire's name. The rule is unfair. Do you get that? Do you understand that the rule is unfair? Do you understand that the rule is unfair and is we all used a little bit of grey matter, we could fix that without the need to ruin this entire season? Or will I have to get the sock puppets out?

Renno

Can't believe he way this thread is developing. As far as I know, last year most clubs, put down the names of "phantom" umpires if they didn't have one. But it didn't make any difference - the policy seemed to be not to enforce the rule, and not deduct any points.

This year, the clubs (that bothered to turn up at the junior AGM) felt that there was no point having a rule that wasn't enforced, so at least enforce it to see how it went - a view that Michael Sharp disagreed with if I remember rightly.

Now in LCC, we've decidedd that we don't want to go down the route of cheating. If we got caught lying, the consequences wouldn't be great. If you don't a tax you're still guilty of tax evasion if you don't pay it. So how do you think we feel that posters here are saying that they're lying to evade a points penalty, whilst we play fair and get penalised.

However, as a club we are against the rule, and would like to get together with all other clubs with a view to contacting the branch. Get in touch with me (or get someone in your club to get in touch with me), if you want to go down that route.

And as I've stated before, clubs that don't turn up at AGMs don't really have much of a voice to be heard when subsequently complaining when decisions are made that they don't like. At the Junior AGM, you are allowed as many delegates as you have mens junior teams (plus one I think). Use your vote next year!!

Firehen

If we got caught lying, the consequences wouldn't be great.

True, but if you obey the law for 14 games in the season, the consequences wouldn't be great.

If you don't a tax you're still guilty of tax evasion if you don't pay it. So how do you think we feel that posters here are saying that they're lying to evade a points penalty, whilst we play fair and get penalised.

We still play fair. We play the exact same way if we have an umpire or not, as I'm sure you do too.

However, as a club we are against the rule, and would like to get together with all other clubs with a view to contacting the branch.

Now? I would be well up for that. Alas, I don't see anything changing until next year. However, I'm sick of seeing teams with minus points for playing a game of cricket, or teams playing with 10 (or sometimes 9) bodies in order to not lose points. So shall I get someone from my club to contact yours with regards to this? I'm guessing LCC is Leinster, not Laois?

neilmulvey

The rule in itself is actually a good idea. One umpire at each end for 40 overs apiece standing means generally there is more consistant calls on wides etc instead of the umpire changing every 5-10 overs and different standards in calls, especially at Junior ABC level.

The practicality of the rule tho is nonsense. It takes a bit of organisation for lads (especially those with families) to play a game each week, plus maybe attend a nets session one evening during the week but time has become a far more precious commodity for a lot of people in the last 10 years.

More and more people work irregular shifts and weekends compared with 15-20 years ago so getting 11 out to play is going to be a slight achievement for a lot of clubs, especially as the teams at Junior level will be bottom of the food chain

Renno

Firehen wrote: »

Now? I would be well up for that. Alas, I don't see anything changing until next year. However, I'm sick of seeing teams with minus points for playing a game of cricket, or teams playing with 10 (or sometimes 9) bodies in order to not lose points. So shall I get someone from my club to contact yours with regards to this? I'm guessing LCC is Leinster, not Laois?

Yep Leinster. It's probably unlikely that the rule could be overturned now, but if all clubs were unaminous in their opposition, it would be churlish to do so. I presume there is also a clause whereby an EGM could be called if enough clubs wanted it (not sure if you could just have an EGM of the Junior Branch though). There may be clubs that are in support of it though.

djimi

Renno wrote: »

Yep Leinster. It's probably unlikely that the rule could be overturned now, but if all clubs were unaminous in their opposition, it would be churlish to do so. I presume there is also a clause whereby an EGM could be called if enough clubs wanted it (not sure if you could just have an EGM of the Junior Branch though). There may be clubs that are in support of it though.

Not many, if any, from my experience of talking to captains...

MartyMarty

Interesting discussions going on at http://www.cricketeurope4.net/CEIRELAND/GENERAL/forum.shtml

A bit of mud being slung in the direction of umpires there!

Renno

Off topic I know, but I can't see how the umpires can be to blame in anyway.

According to the Laws and the match regs, the pitch should have been mowed in the umpire's presence on the day of the restart - but the mower wasn't available.

Nothing covers what happens if this happens though. They can't penalise Belvo, or award a game to anyone. The pitch obviously wasn't dangerous, so that wasn't an avenue that could be pursued. I suppose the umpires could have suggested that everyone reconvened on another day after the pitch had been cut, although neither regs or Laws provide for this either. I wonder did the Terenure captain suggest this at the time?

The umpires have definitely acted in the correct manner. There's nothing to say that the result should be altered in anyway, although Belvo should be reprimanded for a basic shortcoming in standards.