|
Post by Number 6 on Apr 17, 2009 11:29:10 GMT
Firstly, I disagree with wisden17's point. IMHO it's much better to delay the start if rain is falling, even if it's a light drizzle. Even a lightish drizzle can make the ground conditions level 2 (or worse) in a very short space of time. It also, as I already stated, under our league's rain rules makes it much fairer to both teams if the start is delayed rather than having the possibility of having to come off after one or two overs.
If there is rain pre-start then usually it either stops within a short time (in which case no real harm done) or it gets worse in which case play has to be interrupted, possibly after the wicket has been damaged, and resulting in reduced overs for the second side batting. There is very rarely a middle ground where the drizzle is constant and very light (more like fog) and where the ground remains unaffected.
Our league introduced the current rain rules a few short years ago in response to just such incidences of uncertainty and unfairness. It was reassessed at the last AGM and it has to be said that every team was in favour of retaining the status quo. No team wanted the rule changed. I'm also perfectly happy with the situation.
As to wisden17's point about an evening match where it rained constantly for three hours, I simply can't imagine this happening without the ground conditions becoming unsuitable; after an hour of even light rain I've normally experienced puddles on the ground and if there's standing water anywhere on the playing surface then it's automatically Level 3.
Consultation? I always consult with my colleague and the captains / batsmen in 'level 2' cases. If a colleague stopped play at level 2 (or even 3 unless it was a sudden and catastrophic problem) without consulting me there would be strong words in the dressing room and possibly a complaint to the league! There are a couple of umpires who I have informed the league I will not stand with because of this type of behaviour.
Light? Yes, I (in consultation) have offered the light on several occasions. I also always carry a light meter to check whether conditions have worsened or got better.
As to what constitutes level 2 then surely Law 43 has to apply at all times. There can be no dogmatism. Light rain may not in and of itself cause level 2 to be reached but it's effect on the ground, both in terms of the players footing and possible damage to the wicket has to be taken into account. Also, the umpires are the final arbiters and are in charge of the game; if a player slipped in wet conditions and got badly injured then the umpires could be legally liable and may not be insured if poor judgement was exercised!
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Apr 17, 2009 15:57:51 GMT
My overlying question would be which approach would allow the most amount of cricket to be played, assuming the teams want to play, and from my (albeit limited) experience too often level 2 is ignored. I very much like your league's attempt to be fair and clear to all teams, but this seems to suggest that play cannot commence under level 2 conditions of rain, which might be a shame if both teams want to play.
Another question: if a player gets injured under level 2 conditions then wouldn't the captain be more likely liable (assuming the player has a case)? - both sides have to agree to play otherwise there's no play.
I'm also interested about your light meter - do you get a number from your light meter that you decide at the start of the season is an accptable 'level' (don't know what the unit of measurement is) and set it as the benchmark?
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Apr 17, 2009 18:51:06 GMT
As to what would enable more cricket to be played I think you'll find that delaying the start gives, on balance, more playing time. This is certainly the feeing of our league and of the team captains. I can't be certain though.
The point is that it's the umpires decision alone whether to commence play or not, the umpires have the only say in the matter so if they allow play to start in drizzle and then a player gets injured because of poor ground conditions then the umpires are accountable, end of story. Once play has started it then becomes the skippers choices whether to continue in rain and the umpires would be less accountable (although not in the clear totally) for any injuries.
The light meter is of no use in deciding whether the light is unsuitable, there's no magic number. What happens is that the umpires confer and decide to offer the light, then whatever the result of the offer I take a reading. If then the batsmen query the light later I can take another reading and if it's the same or worse then we can allow the light, if it's improved then we can justifiably turn it down. Likewise in a restart situation after coming off for bad light. I have only rarely used it but when I have it's been a godsend.
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Apr 17, 2009 22:28:14 GMT
The point is that it's the umpires decision alone whether to commence play or not, the umpires have the only say in the matter so if they allow play to start in drizzle and then a player gets injured because of poor ground conditions then the umpires are accountable, end of story. Not sure this is true?? If conditions at the scheduled start time are at level 2, the umpires should allow play to start if the captains agree.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Apr 17, 2009 22:32:18 GMT
Not sure this is true?? If conditions at the scheduled start time are at level 2, the umpires should allow play to start if the captains agree. Law 3.8 8. Fitness of ground, weather and light The umpires shall be the final judges of the fitness of the ground, weather and light for play.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Apr 18, 2009 0:46:28 GMT
I accept that, but Law 3.9 (b) also goes on to state that:
If at any time the umpires together agree that the condition of the ground, weather or light is not suitable for play, they shall inform the captains and, unless (i) in unsuitable ground or weather conditions both captains agree to continue, or to commence, or to restart play, or (ii) in unsuitable light the batting side wishes to continue, or to commence, or to restart play, they shall suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to restart.
The parts I highlighted seem to suggest that, in level 2 conditions, it still isn't the umpires' decision alone to allow play to commence; it's the umpires' and captains' decision (3 votes).
Therefore, it would appear to be the captains, if anyone, who could be accountable for injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Apr 18, 2009 11:50:02 GMT
OK, accepted.
But if an injury occurred and the injured player argued that conditions were unacceptable rather than unsuitable the umpires are still in the firing line as per 3.8. This is one of the reasons my league decided not to allow raining starts.
Anyway, one has to do what one thinks best in consultation with one's colleagues, I'm not the ultimate authority here. I'm just glad that my league has the current rain rules in place and so are the clubs.
Law 43 on every occasion.
|
|
|
Post by tippexii on Apr 18, 2009 11:56:43 GMT
Agree 100% with the last sentence.
For players to show legally that conditions were unreasonable, rather than unsuitable, they'd have to show not just that somebody else could have made a different decision, but that the decision that was made was clearly and unequivocally the wrong one. If there's a fine judgement call between Level 1 & 2, (or 2 & 3 when captains ahve agreed to continue, there shouldn't be any legal implications if someone tries to claim that conditions wer worse than they actually were.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Apr 24, 2009 10:24:26 GMT
... Here are my thoughts this moment, regarding weather: |..............LEVEL 1.................|..............LEVEL 2...............|................LEVEL 3................| |..............suitable.................|.............unsuitable.............|.....unreasonable/dangerous.....| clear..........overcast..........drizzle...........light rain............raining........heavy rain.......thunder It's easier for me to look at it as a continuum but of course each weather situation is different and it's subjective. I like the idea of this diagram as it makes it (a bit) easier to see where things fit in, but - as someone else mentioned - this only deals with 'weather' and not the ground or light. The last of these is something which is in most ways independent of the other two which are closely - but not absolutely - connected. So we could enlarge the chart as follows to bring in the state underfoot: |..............LEVEL 1.................|..............LEVEL 2...............|................LEVEL 3................| |..............suitable.................|.............unsuitable.............|.....unreasonable/dangerous.....| clear..........overcast..........drizzle...........light rain............raining........heavy rain.......thunder dry.....odd damp bits....some surface moisture......... wet patches......ends slippery/widespread surface moisture All these are only guides because other factors may come into play: - Drizzle may be a bigger factor where a batsman is wearing spectacles
- What do you do with a ground which is firm and dry apart from a couple of damp patches alongside the pitch?
- What if those patches are close to where the batsman turns?
- What about damp parts of the square where a cover fielder may be charging in?
- Do you change your mind if a player slips ... once ... twice ... three times ... or when?
All of these call for judgment and application of Law 43 and can be real dilemmas. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that accidents can and do happen and that the umpire isn't necessarily culpable if he or she doesn't stop play. Years ago I broke my leg charging in from cover point when my foot skidded; the ground was bone-dry and level, I had good boots with good studs and there's no way anybody or anything other than misfortune was to blame. In the same way that one swallow doesn't make a summer, one person skidding doesn't necessarily mean that conditions are unreasonable/dangerous or even unsuitable. What we all have to do is keep updating our view of conditions as the game progresses and exercise reasonable judgment with a fair dose of caution and common sense guided by experience and observation.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Apr 24, 2009 11:23:01 GMT
Good old law 43!
I suppose good judgement on these tricky decisions will require experience too.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Apr 26, 2009 15:19:12 GMT
...... SNIP......> In the same way that one swallow doesn't make a summer, one person skidding doesn't necessarily mean that conditions are unreasonable/dangerous or even unsuitable. What we all have to do is keep updating our view of conditions as the game progresses and exercise reasonable judgment with a fair dose of caution and common sense guided by experience and observation. Jaybee, I like your post This is exactly right, Law 43 has to come into play in these situations. The rules also assume that players are wearing appropriate clothing to suit the conditions but no allowance should be made for players wearing unsuitable apparel, e.g. a fielder may be wearing non-studded boots and may slip but the umpires would and should assume that fielders wear studs. If the grass is a bit damp and a player doesn't wear studs, well that's his concern not mine! I always assume that if I can keep my feet when running to adjudge a run out then the fielders should jolly well be able to keep their feet too. It's all done by 'feel' really, experience gives an umpire 'gut feelings' about the overall state of the conditions and these feelings are usually quite accurate. You can tell if the ground is a bit 'squidgy' and therefore a bit of rain will quickly cause a problem, etc.
|
|