snicker
Junior Contributor
Posts: 6
|
Post by snicker on Feb 16, 2010 15:01:26 GMT
Would like to know what the dress rules are in members leagues and areas. Are tie and dress shirts worn when standing or take the newer, modern dress, as first class etc, of wearing a polo type, open necked shirt.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Feb 16, 2010 18:24:30 GMT
Until last season, I always wore a shirt and tie, but last season, the premier league umpires were sponsored, and we were all given a blouson type jacket, 2 polo shirts, a track suit top, and suit carrier, so on days I was standing with a premier colleague, we generally wore our sponsored clothing, otherwise, if I stood with any other colleague, I still reverted to the shirt and tie approach for conformity.
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Feb 16, 2010 23:15:55 GMT
In general, I think it's a good idea if the umpires dress alike. I'm quite happy wearing a collar and tie, but I'm equally happy wearing the league polo shirt. I tend to carry a fair assortment of clothing.
I know several umpires who won't ever wear a tie. It doesn't make them bad people!
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Feb 16, 2010 23:35:40 GMT
I'm a dyed in the wool conservative I'm afraid. Tie, razor pressed white shirt and freshly laundered white cotton (traditional) coat for me every time.
I personally and privately think polo shirts look cheap and tacky and smack of baseball umpires, likewise the blouson style jacket. I think it's a very great shame that leagues are stopping insisting on formal attire for umpires; it's merely pandering to the cheap and tawdry image that the modern game is descending into IMHO.
I also think the two umpires should dress similarly but there's absolutely no way that my shirt and tie would ever get swapped for a polo shirt. Neither does my coat get discarded unless it's at least 30 in the shade.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Feb 17, 2010 15:55:14 GMT
Just out of interest Number 6, what tie are you wearing these days? ACU&S, ECBOA, ECBACO or a local association tie.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Feb 18, 2010 1:07:57 GMT
I would like to echo Number 6's opinions on how to dress, and I alos feel polo shirts are just a symbol for how the game itself has cheapened itself. However, I dislike wearing coats and as soon as it's warm enough (and I can agree with my partner!) go out with a shirt and tie. I prefer that image too.
I always like to wear a tie but I'm often baffled by those who will always wear coats, especially on a very hot day. It's so uncomfortable!
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Feb 19, 2010 12:51:32 GMT
missinglegI've always worn my local U&SA tie up to now. I'm contemplating changing to an ACO one this year, not decided yet. Referring to your comment about coats and warm weather. It has to be very warm indeed for me to dispense with a coat, I miss all the pockets too much! I know where everything is in my coat and I do tend to carry a lot of bits and pieces. Also, in my opinion a good cotton (not a thin poly one) coat is a good anti-UV layer and actually helps me to feel cooler in strong sunshine. After all, you don't see desert tribesmen wearing shorts and short-sleeved shirts do you? ;D
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Feb 22, 2010 14:47:25 GMT
... I personally and privately think polo shirts look cheap and tacky and smack of baseball umpires, likewise the blouson style jacket. I think it's a very great shame .... I totally agree - the lack of a decent collar on the blousons I've seen makes them look very cheap indeed. ...I've always worn my local U&SA tie up to now. I'm contemplating changing to an ACO one this year, not decided yet. ... It has to be very warm indeed for me to dispense with a coat, I miss all the pockets too much! I know where everything is in my coat and I do tend to carry a lot of bits and pieces.... The ACO ties are pretty good and much better than the other stuff ECB are peddling. I totally agree about needing enough places for the odds and ends. I personally like both the cut and capacity of airline pilot style shirts, with 2 breast pockets plus epaulettes under which you can tuck a cap or sunhat. However I haven't seen anyone else with them.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Feb 23, 2010 13:49:14 GMT
I enjoy wearing a bag on my trousers so everything goes in there, so I prefer not to wear my coat when I can (all depends on my partner though, because I don't feel the cold very much). I also have an ECB jacket for this season, partly because they're waterproof, so they're comfortable to wear in the drizzle and light rain when the players want to play in such conditions - the ECB is perhaps sending the message that we should/can play in the rain if it's reasonable to by selling these waterproof jackets.
I always wear a hat in virtually any game, because it protects from the sun and it makes it much more comfortable to see in the rain.
It's interesting to hear everyone's preferences though!
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Feb 25, 2010 6:26:01 GMT
- the ECB is perhaps sending the message that we should/can play in the rain if it's reasonable to by selling these waterproof jackets. That's a whole new can of worms! It's never reasonable to play in anything more than a brief light shower. To suggest that cricket should be played in the rain, if that is the ECB message is just plain wrong and would be another nail in the coffin of what was the best game in the world. Cricket can be a dangerous game even in good conditions if one doesn't keep one's wits about one and to suggest that trying to keep out of the way of a lethal projectile travelling at 100 mph with rain in one's eyes, raindrops on one's glasses and whilst standing on slippery wet grass would be acceptable is completely laughable, not to mention outrageous! I, for one, have no intention of risking my health and well being, let alone that of the other fourteen people on the field. If it rains substantively then me and my bails are off whether or not my colleague agrees.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Feb 25, 2010 14:05:52 GMT
Perhaps the ECB are saying there's nothing wrong if both teams want to play on in the (light) rain, otherwise they wouldn't be selling us waterproof jackets.
'If it rains substantively then me and my bails are off whether or not my colleague agrees.'
That would be a quick way to alienate and irritate your colleague! Players might protest under the Laws that the decision to go off wasn't joint and therefore not valid. That said, I would hope no partner would be that argumentative!
The problem with conditions is that it's so subjective; one umpire's unreasonable is another umpire's unsuitable is another umpire's suitable!
If both teams want to play on and the conditions aren't dangerous then I'd be happy. In terms of insurance and liability for injury too, surely as you've offered the conditions the decision rests with the captains?
Part of the reason I always wear a hat is to protect from rain as well as sun! I remember a game last year where it rained lightly and constantly for almost the entire second innings, but both captains wanted to play on. We all got wet by the end of it, although the rain suddenly got heavy before the match was over so we said it had become unreasonable. That's why I've bought this new waterproof jacket for this year - just in case!
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Feb 26, 2010 20:33:21 GMT
Missingleg, I have agreed with many things you've said in the past but I can't agree with you on this one. If it rains for a whole innings, even a light drizzle then you will be playing in dangerous conditions - the ball will be wet and slippery, the ground will be wet and slippery and visibility will be reduced.
I and a number of my colleagues recently had a discussion with one of our league officials who is also one of our most respected trainers and who has a legal background. His view is that the final decision on safety matters always rests with the umpires and that you would be very hard pressed to win an argument in a court of law along the lines of "well, m'lud, the two captains wanted to play on so I let them. Therefore it's not my fault". The umpires have a duty of care towards the players, as well as to each other and they are the final arbiters in safety matters, they cannot abrogate the responsibility by deferring to the captains. He goes further and says that the three stages of "safety" if you like, of suitable, unsuitable and dangerous are irrelevant these days; conditions are either OK to play or they are not. I agree with my trainers learned view that you would be held responsible and that, in extremis you could even be denied insurance cover as you could be deemed to have acted wrongly, in which case you could be personally liable for damages. To use his words, I'm not going to risk losing my house over a game.
I would obviously not make an initial unilateral decision about going off but if anything arose that I felt was a safety matter and I felt that conditions were not OK to continue then I would consult my colleague and hopefully gain his agreement. If he didn't agree then, and only in extremis, I would take my bails and leave. It's never happened yet and I hope it never will but I'm not taking the risk, in this litigious age, of losing my home and possessions over a hobby.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Feb 27, 2010 1:06:20 GMT
I thought you might disagree with me, number 6. I live for debate like this! I like to think I'm reasonable; and when I showed my partner the state of the run-ups, as soon as he said he wasn't happy, we stopped it (I should have said it was a junior game; captains and more importantly coaches wanted to carry on and the latter thanked us for our efforts in nearly finishing the game, but it just got too wet). Yes the ball was wet and slippery, as was the ground, but the laws state that that isn't a reason for stopping play. Visibility wasn't much of an issue as they had slow bowlers on for most of the innings in order to carry on (fast-bowlers would probably have made conditions unreasonable/dangerous, and they accepted that).
Your second paragraph troubles me in that what is then the point of having level 2 in the Laws? If at any point I (we) feel it's unreasonable or dangerous (level 3) then we of course go off. However, as I said before the problem with that is it's subjective and so, in an extreme case, couldn't be proven in court. We have a duty of care, but it's our opinion. The captains also have a duty of care, and if offered the conditions in level 2 they think it's dangerous then they will go off. That's the beauty of level 2 - because an umpire's opinion on danger is not fact, the captains get their say, and it only takes one of them to think it's dangerous (or to want to go off for any reason) at level 2 for the game to be stopped.
I'm sure your league official is a wise man and I will take his, and your, advice on board - as that's the point of these forums. BUT, I am very troubled by his remark that level 2 doesn't exist - because it does and we're there to enforce the laws. If we ignore level 2, doesn't that make us poor umpires? I'm sure the MCC have safety in mind when they write the laws. If they get rid of level 2, and if the regulations say 'play to the MCC laws' then wouldn't we be negligent by ignoring it?
Sorry if I've waffled, but that's how I think - in terms of levels 1, 2 and 3. I would like it if they did get rid of level 2 because it makes things easier, but the laws are there. Ideally, I would like to discuss this with your league official if I could so that I can grasp if he really means ignore certain laws.
Oh, sorry if come across as obtrusive here; I don't mean to be. I know you're far more experienced than me and really don't want to sound arrogant, I just feel frustrated about the difficulty in interpreting the laws regarding conditions. I would love it if the laws read 'if it drizzles or rains, go off', as that's an objective instruction, but it doesn't.
In the case of our game, I still feel we did things properly. It was level 1, it quickly became level 2 in our opinions, but all parties wanted to continue, and when we decided it became level 3, we took everyone off, much to their frustration.
Now if there's a chance I had been negligent, I will be much much harsher this season with my opinions on the levels. In any event, thanks for the advice :-) I suppose the problem is, only my colleague and were there! He was a premier league umpire too, which really helped.
Based on what you've said about liability worries, if we ever get a game together and you think it's level 3 when I think it's level 1 or 2, I will change my opinion to meet yours and we will go off. As you rightly said, it's not worth being uncomfortable with these issues.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Feb 27, 2010 10:12:15 GMT
Hi Missingleg. I love these debates too, if everybody simply agreed like sheep then nothing would ever progress and life would be boring! And you don't come across as arrogant at all, not to me anyway. You have opinions that you are prepared to argue the merits of and you do so very well if I may say so. I'd love to get a game with you at some point, I think we'd probably make a good team! You're quite right to say that a slippery ball is not a reason in itself to not use the ball or to change it but the laws do say that everyone is entitled to a good footing and that lack of a good foothold does make for a an unsuitable surface. Also, it's not stated explicitly in the laws but surely if a player, or for that matter an umpire, wears glasses then rain, even drizzle will adversely affect the wearers vision. When fast and hard projectiles are flying around everyone needs good vision. I certainly wouldn't be happy as a spectacle wearing batsman or silly mid on fielder if I had to contend with rain-speckled glasses. Like a lot of the laws of cricket, suitability of weather, light and ground conditions are open to interpretation and I prefer to aim for a more conservative interpretation, as does our training officer. I would much rather suffer jibes from a pissed off team than risk ending up at the wrong end of a personal injury claim because I was too liberal in interpreting the playing conditions. The training officers view about the significance of the level 1, 2 and 3 situation is purely his interpretation of what is reasonable in terms of self protection in an increasingly litigious society. Yes, the laws still quote the three levels and logically you can't fault an umpire for complying with them on the field. However, should it ever come to it then a court may look at a case say of an injury caused by a fielder slipping on a "level 2" playing surface and may adjudge that play should have been suspended. A courts argument might be " how can you have an almost good enough to play on surface? Surely it's either completely suitable or it's not?" In such a case the laws of cricket would have no bearing on the law of the land and a court may find against the umpire(s). A faint possibility certainly but a real one nevertheless. I simply feel, as does our training officer, that I don't want to become the UK's first test case in court! ;D So I'll play it conservatively thanks!
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Feb 27, 2010 13:33:15 GMT
Yes that's a fine point about a batsman with glasses; I'd have to take that into account when judging conditions.
I think I will continue to be more liberal than the average umpire with regard to interpretation of levels, but you've certainly convinced me to think more carefully about it this year, if we get another wet summer!
As for the court scenario, I would be dismayed if I were found to be negligent on the basis that 'level 2 should be ignored'. Honestly, I think I have more trouble with the concept of level 2 than anything else! Because...if I were asked 'how can you have an almost good enough to play on surface? Surely it's either completely suitable or it's not?' I would say no it wasn't suitable, but the laws say you can play on in unsuitable conditions (level 2) if both parties want to. My hands are tied. Either I ignore the laws on conditions or I go by the laws - which makes me a better umpire?
I hope we get a game together and it starts to drizzle!! Haha! Me in my ECB waterproof jacket saying it's okay and you running off with the bails. Just kidding.
|
|