Forum

Cricketing Rules

I think the main reason why cricket is becoming more complicated in terms of the rule book is because people's perception of cricket is changing. Years ago cricket was much more popular with many more matches being played as Andy said in his last post but the truth is there wasn't as much to do years ago. In todays society everything seems to be about entertainment, having fun and socialising in a different capacity. People have a wider range of options when it comes to sports. After all millions of pounds is being spent on advertising / influening young people to watch football and other sports and the truth is these kinds of sports have more financial muscle than cricket which means they can afford to grasp the attentions of the much younger audience. So why did we introduce 20 overs matches next year in section 1? I think people in clubs are starting to get sick of long days away playing cricket when they could be doing much more exciting things with their time. I don't think the union should be blamed for these rules as it is about the people who play the game and it is these people who determine the rules. Peoples social and behavioural trends have changed and in fact it could be argued that these rules have been introduced to save the game rather than deter it as most people have said. This is why Sir Alan Stanford has revitalised cricket in the west indies and why the 20 / 20 game has flourished. It is entertainment and people want to be entertained. The people that criticise stanford and co for the introduction of this type of cricket are people that do not take into account how people / need has changed.

I've tried to be as objective as I can regarding this and just for the record I'd rather play the 50 over game!

Andy, you're giving my age away! I was just looking, I was elected on to the Divisional Committee in 1975 (I was very young!)and have been there ever since, and you joined the following year. In that year Tom Greenwood was Chairman and Dixon Rose vice Chairman. Apart from the stalwarts you mentioned some of the others were Jack Newell, George Orr, Hubert Cranston, Frank Thompson, Billy Boyd (Muckamore), Maurice Moore, Harold McKinley, John McMillan, Ian Taylor, and Tony Cole.

re Clarence's feature about the way it used to be and I'm surprised to see that he remembers cricket at Banbridge!! But seriously, and as I've posted before, when did it start to get so complicated? I recall being on a committee in the late 70's, early 80s with the likes of Bob Law, Jim Barry, the recently departed Jim McMorran, Alastair Kyle from D'dee, Tom Greenwood, Jim Boyce and others whose names have slipped my memory but I'm sure Roger Bell will recall them as he was around at that time. And that was a time when considerably more club matches were being played. Now that I'm in my dotage I have the odd senior moment and wonder what the reactions of Greenwood and the late Dr. Billy Ritchie (in one of his "in vino veritas" moments!) would be to the modern appeals. To qoute a certain waiter on an alledged occasion " where did it all go wrong?"

I think, and I mean I think:
Normal starting times, DL and reductions are all the same as before.
Yes, in other words, the first attempt at replaying a PREMIER league match in glorious July sunshine, will start at 12 noon and will be all done and dusted by 2.15pm. What a joke, I hope Inst and the rest are proud of themselves for voting this in, in fact why don’t we just scrap the league and play friendlies!!!
At least the tea ladies will be happy, nothing required for this farce!

Rodney

The confusion surrounds rearrangements and start times. Match 2 is now a 20 over match, correct? So if for example you have to play a 20 over rearrangement in August can you start at 2pm? Does Duckworth Lewis apply? Can the match be reduced to a 10 over fixture if rain intervenes? Without looking it up do you know the answer?
I don't. It shouldn't be this difficult.

Re Clarence and Paul

I'm not sure scrapping the rule book will make much difference. If we start from scratch then there will always be opposition and things will change which means adding to the rules again and eventually we could be at a stage where we're at now. It is an iterative process and one that will adapt to the change in times / cricket / era. I think the current rules are their for a reason but I agree that over time rules have been included that shouldn't be there any longer. I get back to the same point, people talk on the forum about changing this and that rule but when it comes to the AGM noone proposes it. Perfect example is the Sunday cricket topic. How many hours were put into that on the forum and it wasnt even proposed at the AGM to modify / remove the rules surroudning it.

Clarence

Re: Your article on the rules.

Starting again with the rule book is something we totally agree on! Things are too complicated. I have an old NCU book from 20 years ago and the additions to the rules is frightening.

There is a Competitions Directorate in place and they should look to overhaul and simplify the rules to put before the AGM in 2009.

Dundrum have stayed up in Section 2 and it was decided on the field. No other reason.And its great to see one of the smaller clubs in the NCU step up the plate in their first ever season in section 2. Hopefully they can build on their results and move up the table next season. Well done Jeff Maguire and his players.... a genuine club.

RJS
Dundrum stayed up because of what they did on the field of play. Surely, mistakes or no mistakes, that is the correct result. If it had been any other way, then what is the point of actually playing the games at all? Dundrum will be fined for the mistakes in the book - that is stipluated in the rules and that is all. That also applies to team winning leagues, gaining promotion, etc.

Will be interesting to see the verdict on the Saintfield appeal in section 2. Seems saintfield will probably be unfairly relegated because of Dundrums disastrous mistakes in the books. NCU published on their site that had the books been right saintfield would stay up,however,they are still sending saintfield down by the looks of it? how can they acknowledge their mistake and not correct it? In the same principle,if a team marks their books wrong all season and wins the league and an appeal was put forward,would the NCU allow them to be crowned champions???

So what's with this eegit Gambhir?
He pleads GUILTY and then appeals, NOT against the 1 Test ban but against the finding of him being Guilty!!!
Is he coming to the NCU next year?
PS - I bet the BCCI bullies expect to win this one as well!
Now if their lawyers opened a branch over here.......................

RE: CLUBS NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE ARTICLE
I understand some readers felt I did not represent the facts correctly relating to the CSN Appeal in this article so I wish to clarify the position.
I accept that the Appeals process from the date of the adjudication to the dinner was closer to 3 weeks and quoting 5 weeks going back to the match was not accurate. I also did not intentionally infer that CSN deliberately timed their Appeal to stop the trophy being presented so if any reader took that interpretation that was not my intention.
I therefore apologize for any confusion or embarrassment caused.

Thanks Wayne. The innuendos were coming from elsewhere!
Unfortunately there doesn't seem much interest in interprovincial cricket from the top and there are some issues from the bottom if the interpro teams are selected only from Ireland hopefuls excluding older players, professionals and those who have opted out of the squad system. If we want a good interpro tournament then let's pick from everyone, and if we want Ireland trial matches then let's pick the teams accordingly. I'm not sure there's enough interest in either as the national squad has so many matches already, but Connell and West have proved that ability will be recognised.

Mark - there are no innuendos. I do not know the reason for the vote as I said in my previous comment. I am sure it was discussed and well thought out and when I do establish the reasons it is not for me to comment on this forum what they are.

For what it is worth a league of 8 teams would free up more time for a return of some form of inter pros going forward. I am not sure what other peoples views are but I would like to see inter pros back. The introduction of the forum could generate more interest in matches/teams and ultimately reduce the gulf between league cricket and international cricket/ireland development cricket and would let Irish selectors see the best of the rest.

Wayne, you are right in that CSN don't have to explain to anyone their decision but looking outside the club and in the wider interests of cricket, it would be helpful for others not at the meeting to try and understand the logic. CSNI is back at the top of NCU cricket these days and the club has earned a lot of respect for getting there. So when you vote against a proposal that appears to promote better senior cricket there has to be a cricket reason. Please share it and let's set aside all the other innuendo that's clouding the cricket issue.