Print

[edge]

On the "when there isn't any verbals" topic, would you prefer all games ended in a tie to avoid one team getting their feelings hurt, too?

Farcical tie suggestions aside, would it really be so bad if amateur cricket players didn't set out to hurt other people's feelings?

[Jeff Navarro]

It seems, to me anyway, that without the use of saliva - home teams will have to consider more grass on the pitches. Alternatively in Asia more dust bowls as reverse will be harder to attain. more interesting cricket in those situations

[Maverick79]

I would say it is probably more a case of leaving more moisture in the surface as opposed to strictly grass length and preparing greener pitches to facilitate more movement for bowlers

[Jimbo]

Farcical tie suggestions aside, would it really be so bad if amateur cricket players didn't set out to hurt other people's feelings?

The only joy I get out of cricket is trying to make children on the opposition team cry. This is a ridiculous suggestion 😂

[SLA]

A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the feasibility of socially-distanced cricket.

Two articles appeared today that provide the definitive expert viewpoint: I've provided quotes and links below. hopefully this clears up any confusion that people may have had.

First, from the cricketer magazine:

“Sir Jeremy Farrar is one of the foremost infectious disease specialists in the world. A member of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), he is part of a panel of experts who have collectively helped inform national strategy during the coronavirus crisis.

He said the following of recreational cricket:

If you take a cricket game and think sensibly, how can we still have a game which respects some of the physical distancing measures that make sense: hand-washing between overs, not spitting on the ball, using umpires from the teams to reduce the number of people, changing at home and going to the ground. You can think through a game from early in the morning to stumps and come up logically with a plan in the context of physical distancing which wouldn’t ruin the game. I think you could do that and have games potentially played in July and August.

What can we do with our scientific knowledge to reduce risk and allow recreational cricket to go on, which is hugely important. People’s wellbeing has been so negatively impacted with this, we all know that, and getting people active again is hugely important. None of us have done anywhere near as much physical exercise as we would ordinarily do during this, and there is a very positive benefit to our wellbeing and physical health through games of cricket, other sports and exercise. If we can just adapt things a bit to accommodate physical distancing, I think there would be some very positive aspects to getting back to recreational cricket.”


https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/news/sir_jeremy_farrar_qa_cricket_coronavirus_crowds_sport_venues.html

In an article in Wisden, Dr Bharat Pankhania, a senior clinical lecturer in infectious disease control at the University of Exeter’s College of Medicine and Health said: “The possibility of a ball carrying infection is remote, remote. It may have infectious saliva on it, but I don’t think the ball is infectious. It’s out in the open air, a drying-out environment, which is perfect. Even men around the bat [in close proximity] is only a marginal risk.


https://www.wisden.com/stories/your-game/club-cricket/disease-specialist-deems-playing-cricket-low-risk-activity-for-spreading-coronavirus

[mohawks94]

I've been asked if I can help out with being a club presence to monitor nets, probably during colt times. Going to have a booking system, different sections having different allocated times to book within.

[mo_town]

Its nice to read such articles, but I think all of us should mentally prepare for the possibility that there wont be any league cricket this year. Would any league risk allowing cricket and want to be blamed if a game of cricket led to multiple ppl getting infected? Even though the chance of that happening could be 1000:1, I doubt they will want to take that chance.

[SLA]

Its nice to read such articles, but I think all of us should mentally prepare for the possibility that there wont be any league cricket this year. Would any league risk allowing cricket and want to be blamed if a game of cricket led to multiple ppl getting infected? Even though the chance of that happening could be 1000:1, I doubt they will want to take that chance.

Because a) the science is pretty clear and has been for some time that a game of cricket won't lead to multiple people being infected, as long as they follow the rules, and b) neither the league nor the club are liable anyway. Players play at their own risk. The league doesn't get in trouble every time players are involved in a car accident on the way to the game. The club doesn't get in trouble every time someone sprains their ankle in the covers. Sometimes accidents happen, it doesn't automatically mean that someone has to be liable.

the responsibility of the league is to follow the scientific advice. If the scientific advice says its safe, as it does, then it has done all it is legally required to do.

Once we reach the point where the scientific advice states that risk of transmission during a game is sufficiently low enough for cricket to be safely played, then there is no justifiable reason for any club or league to prevent play from taking place.

[edge]

It'd be a sad state of affairs if blame culture has really got that far!

Good to hear someone up the top end is thinking about club cricket, we can but hope. Hard to believe that games couldn't take place with a little flexibility and willing.

[ProCricketer1982]

Because a) the science is pretty clear and has been for some time that a game of cricket won't lead to multiple people being infected, as long as they follow the rules, and b) neither the league nor the club are liable anyway. Players play at their own risk. The league doesn't get in trouble every time players are involved in a car accident on the way to the game. The club doesn't get in trouble every time someone sprains their ankle in the covers. Sometimes accidents happen, it doesn't automatically mean that someone has to be liable.

the responsibility of the league is to follow the scientific advice. If the scientific advice says its safe, as it does, then it has done all it is legally required to do.

Once we reach the point where the scientific advice states that risk of transmission during a game is sufficiently low enough for cricket to be safely played, then there is no justifiable reason for any club or league to prevent play from taking place.

 

if this was true why would clubs/coaches take insurance out?? Plus, what's the point of league cricket if some of the players can't play due to being vulnerable (diabeties so not just oldies) or because they won't risk their family.. As soon as clubs could be missing players regularly the league will be a joke anyway so become a random lottery of a season.

No swinging ball (or far less)
Keeper stood up? way less than 2M..
Umpire / Bowler and batter will all be within 2M of each other regularly
How do you stop a batter and bowler/fielder coming too close for a run out attempt?

The laws/games would have to be changed drastically to allow safe play. Sure players could 'just risk it' but again, as above.. many players won't so 'league' cricket becomes kinda pointless as you'll have random teams who may not be the same as their normal team.

If there are players in aug/setp who just want to risk it then play a few friendlies

[ProCricketer1982]

Our first team alone would lose

Best Bowler - Diabeties
Best Batter - Young family who I won't risk for a game of cricket
4 players - Young families who they won't risk
1 player who generally is unaffected but 'technically' suffers asthma so would be classed as vulnerable so wouldn't play.

These players simply can't be replaced so the team would be decimated and any league game would become a farce. The other clubs in the league report the same to differing degree's as you'd imagine. The odd club unsurprisingly has the least missing wants to play as they smell a league win etc.

[SLA]

 

if this was true why would clubs/coaches take insurance out?? Plus, what's the point of league cricket if some of the players can't play due to being vulnerable (diabeties so not just oldies) or because they won't risk their family.. As soon as clubs could be missing players regularly the league will be a joke anyway so become a random lottery of a season.

No swinging ball (or far less)
Keeper stood up? way less than 2M..
Umpire / Bowler and batter will all be within 2M of each other regularly
How do you stop a batter and bowler/fielder coming too close for a run out attempt?

The laws/games would have to be changed drastically to allow safe play. Sure players could 'just risk it' but again, as above.. many players won't so 'league' cricket becomes kinda pointless as you'll have random teams who may not be the same as their normal team.

If there are players in aug/setp who just want to risk it then play a few friendlies

the insurance is mostly for 3rd party protection - eg a ball hits a little old lady on the street.

Its of limited use in the case of injured or infected players, most of whom will have agreed to a standard liability waiver as part of their membership registration. If you were negligent you won't be covered, if you weren't negligent then they don't have a case. Either way, the insurance benefits no-one.

[SLA]

Our first team alone would lose

Best Bowler - Diabeties
Best Batter - Young family who I won't risk for a game of cricket
4 players - Young families who they won't risk
1 player who generally is unaffected but 'technically' suffers asthma so would be classed as vulnerable so wouldn't play.

These players simply can't be replaced so the team would be decimated and any league game would become a farce. The other clubs in the league report the same to differing degree's as you'd imagine. The odd club unsurprisingly has the least missing wants to play as they smell a league win etc.

This is fine and its up to you if you want to be extremely risk-averse, but I assume that for the sake of logical consistency, you definitely won't be doing any even riskier activities, such as drinking more than 2 units of alcohol in 24-hour period, using a lawnmower without safely goggles, or changing the radio station whilst driving.

[six and out]

The only way you could feasibly play league cricket probably is by playing each team once now so therefore you have to start by early/mid July.

So there probably won't even be enough time for league cricket anyway. When you think that currently all our cricket is off and England are only aiming to start in early July.

I can see friendlies happening, and I will be happy for that, as it then gives people the choice with no pressure.

[ProCricketer1982]

This is fine and its up to you if you want to be extremely risk-averse, but I assume that for the sake of logical consistency, you definitely won't be doing any even riskier activities, such as drinking more than 2 units of alcohol in 24-hour period, using a lawnmower without safely goggles, or changing the radio station whilst driving.

It's only risk averse if you aren't affected.. 35k people's family might disagree with you currently and is a few games of cricket really worth the risk? Is missing one season really that much to ask of people?

As virtually anyone who has been on Ops would tell you.. the 4-6 months period where you're cut off, shelled/shot at most days etc.. It's got nothing to do with being some cry baby as someone put it about verbals or being 'risk averse'.. there is a difference when you are forced to take a risk for something with purpose. Cricket (Pro and amateur) really wouldn't hurt if it took 2020 off to ensure no one comes to any harm just because someone couldn't live without a few games for a short period of time.

There is just no need to take extended risks just to play some amateur cricket. There will be some who are preared or able to take the risk, fair enough.. play friendlies. That way, as someone just said.. there is no pressure on anyone to play. That also means there is no need for keepers to be up, men around the bat (so rarely ever seen now in win lose cricket anyway) and no need for slips etc etc