Carew Cricket Club (Pembroke CC League): Wankers!

[littlebabyjesus]

Well he should walk really but it's hard when you fucking know you didn't hit it! Quite a few batsman make their displeasure known in league games. It's not like they have a match fee to lose is it?

In a lot of league games the umpire will still be a team mate of the batsman too, which often doesn't aid dignified exits.

It's one of those oddities of the game, isn't it? You try to hit it and miss completely and you're ok. You try to hit it and do a little better, getting a tiny edge, and you're out. Reckon bowlers have more to be annoyed by about that one.

 

[Spymaster]

Anyway this is what happens when you over complicate cricket with bonus points and other unnecessary guff. Someone was trying to explain the rules around the Surrey league to me the other day. 1st batting team can choose how long they bat for, winning draws, losing draws, apparently the optimum time to declare was something with 49.5 overs. Byzantine complexity.

This actually isn't the case, btw. I think you have the wrong league.

Our Saturday sides play in the Surrey League and the games are played in overs format so you don't get draws. Just the very occasional tie.

 

[Reiabuzz]

Don't see the problem. It's actually pretty clever. Change the rules if you don't want them used to the letter.

 

[JTG]

Yes, but it was his initial refusing to leave that made us aware when the keeper confirmed he hadnt hit it. If he had done that in a league match not sure if the outcome would have been the same, the focus should be on his not leaving, not whether he hit it... Maybe? Who knows!

So either the keeper owns up that he didn't hit it or he keeps schtum. Batsman standing his ground not necessary if the keeper is honest in the first place.

So, in a league match the batsman has to start walking... it's still in the keeper's hands here. Nothing to do with the batsman showing dissent or not

 

[Spymaster]

So either the keeper owns up that he didn't hit it or he keeps schtum. Batsman standing his ground not necessary if the keeper is honest in the first place.

So, in a league match the batsman has to start walking... it's still in the keeper's hands here. Nothing to do with the batsman showing dissent or not

What Mumbles means is that if the batsman hadn't stood, the keeper would have been less likely to have been asked, or said anything. Once the batsman starts walking without moaning, most of the doubt that anyone might have had is removed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Don't see the problem. It's actually pretty clever. Change the rules if you don't want them used to the letter.

I am genuinely surprised by how common this opinion is here.

 

[Spymaster]

I am genuinely surprised by how common this opinion is here.

It's sad but it's not the norm. I stuck the OP on our club's WhatsApp group this morning and not one player has supported Carew (one said it's smart but they're still wankers) and most were scathing. Tbf, even on here only 3 people seem to be supportive of it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But it's not smart. It's dumb. Like Brian Rose was fucking dumb. They'll lose the title for it, most likely, and should have bloody known they would, like Rose should have known.

 

[Spymaster]

But it's not smart. It's dumb. Like Brian Rose was fucking dumb. They'll lose the title for it, most likely, and should have bloody known they would, like Rose should have known.

I'm not sure they will lose it. I think they should, and be kicked out of the league, but I think it's more likely that Pembroke will make them play the match.

If that happens, fancy a trip to Wales to cheer on Cresselly???

 

[kabbes]

I'm not in support of it, I'm just not particularly outraged by it either. If you set up the rules in a particular way, you can't be surprised when people use them to gain advantage. It's what competitive people do.

If there is something that is more important to you than anything else, have a think in advance about how to incentivise that thing first and foremost. Don't incentivise completely different behaviour and then cry about it when those incentives come home to roost.

 

[Spymaster]

It's what competitive people do.

Nope. Not all of them. Believe it or not there are plenty of competitive people who are also honourable. Reading some of the posts on here one would think the two are mutually exclusive. Which is absolute nonsense.

What Carew did comes off the same song sheet as Chappell's underarm ball to McKechnie.

Just exploiting the rules, or dirty wankers?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not in support of it, I'm just not particularly outraged by it either. If you set up the rules in a particular way, you can't be surprised when people use them to gain advantage. It's what competitive people do.

If there is something that is more important to you than anything else, have a think in advance about how to incentivise that thing first and foremost. Don't incentivise completely different behaviour and then cry about it when those incentives come home to roost.

Balls. No such thing as a foolproof set of rules that covers every situation explicitly, which is why you also have a set of guiding principles. Anyone hiding behind rules to excuse shit behaviour is a wanker.

This website does similar. Yes there are rules about what you can and can't do, but the main rule is in fact a guiding principle - 'don't be a dick'.

 

[kabbes]

Nope. Not all of them. Believe it or not there are plenty of competitive people who are also honourable. Reading some of the posts on here one would think the two are mutually exclusive. Which is absolute nonsense.

I didn't say all competitive people do it. Just that you shouldn't be surprised if (some) competitive people to do it. So set up your rules in advance to prioritise the things you want to give priority to, not the things you don't.

What Carew did comes off the same song sheet as Chappell's underarm ball to McKechnie.

Just exploiting the rules, or dirty wankers?

These things aren't mutually exclusive. And it's the same tune -- if you don't want people bowling underarm then don't allow them to bowl underarm.

 

[kabbes]

Balls. No such thing as a foolproof set of rules that covers every situation explicitly, which is why you also have a set of guiding principles. Anyone hiding behind rules to excuse shit behaviour is a wanker.

I'm sorry, but it's utterly predictable that if you have a points system based around the number of runs scored and wickets taken rather than just games won then a team at some point will act to minimise their rival's ability to score runs and take wickets. It doesn't need to be foolproof, it just needs to not be stupid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry, but it's utterly predictable that if you have a points system based around the number of runs scored and wickets taken rather than just games won then a team at some point will act to minimise their rival's ability to score runs and take wickets. It doesn't need to be foolproof, it just needs to not be stupid.

guiding principle - this is a sports match: both teams turn up wanting to win (or in the case in which a draw is possible, to play for that if they don't think they can win).

In three words: You must try

 

[kabbes]

guiding principle - this is a sports match: both teams turn up wanting to win (or in the case in which a draw is possible, to play for that if they don't think they can win).

In three words: You must try

Also, though, guiding principle -- this is a league. Do not win the battle but lose the war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also, though, guiding principle -- this is a league. Do not win the battle but lose the war.

Nope. That's not a guiding principle as to the things incumbent upon you to do for the good of the league. 'you must try' is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Urban's very own 'don't be a dick' would cover it too.

 

[kabbes]

Nope. That's not a guiding principle as to the things incumbent upon you to do for the good of the league. 'you must try' is.

If you want a guiding principle that you must do things for the good of the league, you really need to spell that out to the players. Because all they get is a set of rules regarding what earns you points and what doesn't.

 

[planetgeli]

They're fucked.

Spirit & Code of Cricket : Pembroke County Cricket Club

PEMBROKE COUNTY CRICKET CLUB
CODE OF CONDUCT & SPIRIT OF CRICKET
1 CODE OF CONDUCT

1A Pembroke County Cricket Club is committed to maintaining the highest standards of behaviour and conduct at cricket matches both on and off the field. All clubs and players, by virtue of their affiliation to Pembroke County Cricket Club, explicitly agree to abide by this Code of Conduct, which incorporates the Spirit of Cricket, and are bound by the provisions in these Regulations.

1B The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit and Laws of Cricket.

2 SPIRIT OF CRICKET

Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws, but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.

2D The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for:

* Your opponents

* Your own captain and team

* The role of the umpires

* The game’s traditional values

2E It is against the Spirit of the Game:

* To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice,

Failure to comply with the provisions of the Code of Conduct and Spirit of Cricket could lead to disciplinary action.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES OF
THE PEMBROKE COUNTY CRICKET CLUB

It shall be a disciplinary offence:



(ii) For any Club or Body to fail properly to control or discipline its players, or to act in a manner calculated to prejudice the good name or interests of Pembroke County Cricket Club.

(f) If at the hearing the Disciplinary Committee find the alleged offence proved it shall have the power to impose one or more of the following penalties

(2) In the case of a Body:
(i) Expulsion from the PCCC
(ii) Expulsion from any PCCC competition
(iii) Relegation (One or more Divisions)
(iv) Deduction of points (Either during the current season, or from the start of the next season)
(v) A fine not exceeding £500
(vi) Reprimand as to future conduct.

The conduct listed in Level 1 to Level 4 ....cannot be considered to be exhaustive

 

[kabbes]

Well there we go then. They obviously weren't as clever as they thought they had been!

 

[Spymaster]

Quite right too.

Chuck the fucking book at them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Stupid. And cunts. Stupid cunts.

 

[Spymaster]

Stupid. And cunts. Stupid cunts.

And pretty much every cricket player and fan in England and Wales knows

 

[littlebabyjesus]

.cannot be considered to be exhaustive

This is the crucial bit. It needs to be included in any list of rules of conduct, or constitution, or competition regulations. You can't summarise the totality of morality in one document. Some people will pretend that it is exhaustive to justify being a shit. I've seen it in my martial arts association. Such people are wankers.

 

[Reiabuzz]

I'm furious. Drafting an outraged email to the Mail right now.

 

[JTG]

What Mumbles means is that if the batsman hadn't stood, the keeper would have been less likely to have been asked, or said anything. Once the batsman starts walking without moaning, most of the doubt that anyone might have had is removed.

Right. So the keeper's more likely to cheat if the batsman walks.

 

[Spymaster]

Right. So the keeper's more likely to cheat if the batsman walks.

Well yes. You could be a bit more generous and say that the keeper is less likely to correct a mistake unbidden, but it amounts to the same thing. Similarly bowlers appealing for lbw when they know full well that he's not lined-up. That's not part of the game or being competitive; it's cheating.

Ime, the most competitive players want to win by competing and being the best at their sport, not by gaming the rules.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well yes. You could be a bit more generous and say that the keeper is less likely to correct a mistake unbidden, but it amounts to the same thing. Similarly bowlers appealing for lbw when they know full well that he's not lined-up. That's not part of the game or being competitive; it's cheating.

Ime, the most competitive players want to win by competing and being the best at their sport, not by gaming the rules.

Yeah, you wouldn't accuse Adam Gilchrist of not being competitive cos he was a walker, or Lara. Kevin Pietersen, of all people, was always a walker as well.

There is inconsistency in attitudes towards gamesmanship. People walk or not, and lots don't so it's not considered bad not to - many are open about the fact that they do not, and there is even a culture in Aus where players are criticised for walking. But claiming a catch on the half-volley is considered a venal crime, cheating. It's not so different from not walking. And as for mankading, well, in the days of t20 and batsmen stealing singles left right and centre, I find it a bizarre anomaly that it isn't simply an accepted part of the game to do it even without a warning, as would be done regarding stealing a base in baseball.

But this isn't even on that level. This is not trying. It removes the point in playing at all, and I'd refuse to play this particular team next season if they aren't penalised in some way for this.

Or better, every team bats first against them when they can next season and declares after an over. GIve them the title next season as well by doing to them what they did every match they can. You'd quickly ruin the league by doing that, which just shows exactly how shit what they did was.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah, you wouldn't accuse Adam Gilchrist of not being competitive cos he was a walker, or Lara. Kevin Pietersen, of all people, was always a walker as well.

There is inconsistency in attitudes towards gamesmanship. People walk or not, and lots don't so it's not considered bad not to - many are open about the fact that they do not, and there is even a culture in Aus where players are criticised for walking. But claiming a catch on the half-volley is considered a venal crime, cheating. It's not so different from not walking. And as for mankading, well, in the days of t20 and batsmen stealing singles left right and centre, I find it a bizarre anomaly that it isn't simply an accepted part of the game to do it even without a warning, as would be done regarding stealing a base in baseball.

But this isn't even on that level. This is not trying. It removes the point in playing at all, and I'd refuse to play this particular team next season if they aren't penalised in some way for this.

Or better, every team bats first against them when they can next season and declares after an over. GIve them the title next season as well by doing to them what they did every match they can. You'd quickly ruin the league by doing that, which just shows exactly how shit what they did was.

Spot on.

As for Mankading, those against it are happy for the batsman to take advantage of nicking distance but think the bowler is out of order by taking him out. Totally weird. As you say, no warning should be necessary. Just make it a rule that the batsman can back-up as far as he likes but at his own risk of being run out by the bowler. All's fair.