At first glance Wayne Horwood’s suggestion to shred the NCU rulebook and start again might seem too revolutionary, but on reflection maybe it is time for a serious review of some of the more contentious rules?
Wayne is one of the more direct “free thinkers” in Ulstercricket and I’ve always felt there is a place within the administration for cricketers like Wayne, Ivan McCombe, Paul Stafford, Neil Hunter, Andy Clement and Robin Haire. What they have in common is that they speak their minds and they are passionate about their sport. I’m not saying everything they say is right, but their collective voice deserves a better platform than website postings. Neil and Andy are on board within the NCU, but surely there is a strategic place for the others?
All have played the game at a high level and over many years each has consistently brought simple analysis to some contentious issues. However, simple analysis and pragmatism don’t sit easily within a complex rulebook, and we have many examples of sledgehammer mentality being applied to crush relatively minor rule infringements. But who’s to blame but the clubs themselves, as they set the rules at annual general meetings?
What I suspect is at the heart of the problem is that many players are uncomfortable with bureaucracy, and while they often have simple solutions to cricket issues, they don’t see the bigger picture that not all clubs are controlled by cricketers, and not many active players go to AGMs! In this tough old world the “dog eat dog” mentality has infiltrated every sport and winning has become everything, sometimes at the expense of common sense and fair play. I’m not going to re-open some of the more contentious issues regarding player registrations, time-keeping, and the use of sub fielders in recent times, but I do feel the NCU has been harshly criticised in some instances for “shooting itself in the foot” when the reality is that the AGMs have set rules in place that give the legislators no room to compromise. After all, as soon as the NCU moves in a different direction from the rulebook, a lawyer appears representing a vested interest, and the whole picture changes immediately. Lawyers have no place in sport, and unless you are a rich sporting body there is no alternative but to shy away from confrontation. And that’s the main reason why the rulebook has become so complex and all embracing, as the club delegates at AGMs are actually protecting themselves against each other!
If solid people like Wayne feel that change is in the air, then that makes a lot of sense because docking points for minor infringements is certainly sledgehammer mentality and well over the top.
There was a time within the NCU when one small committee ran the senior league and another ran the junior leagues. The senior committee dealt solely with senior cricket, and although it was often insular in its thinking and treated junior cricket as subordinate, senior cricket was administered very efficiently. Going back even further, minor rule infringements were either dismissed or matches were ordered to be replayed. In those days teams wanted to play cricket, and the option of awarding points in the committee room was usually the last resort. How times have changed!
After fighting for fifty years to remove the distinction between senior and junior administration the two committees were joined in 1975 so it is unlikely there will be a return to its former status in 2009. However, Wayne’s suggestion that the premier league captains should meet and agree certain rules is a step in the right direction, but it has to be attended by the captains and not by club delegates or we are back to where we started. What I suggest is that someone like Wayne should convene a meeting of the captains during the current season and gauge their appetite for change, and perhaps put recommendations to the union now rather than later. I’m sure the NCU would welcome such an initiative and it could be the catalyst for change. We don’t have to shred the rulebook to improve the situation, but we certainly need to look at it and evaluate whether some rules promote or negate common sense and fair play.
Clarence Hiles
Editor
