Cricketing moral dilemma

[Swervy]

This one cropped up when I was playing on Saturday..and a few weeks ago

We had played this team a few weeks ago, and they played a couple of young lads (15 year olds) in their team. They made a few whisphered moans about the fact that our opening bowler, who is pretty quick, didn't slow down for these younger lads.

Should we have taken off our quick bowler, or at least asked him drop a yard or two in pace?


Then we played against the same team on Saturday, the pitch is a bit lively, and our opening bowler is bowling pretty quickly. We take a wicket, and they send in one of these 15 year old lads in at number three. The fourth ball he gets, hits him in the grill of the helmet, and the ball hits the ground and rolls to the stumps. The young lad is shaken up, but sees the ball rolling and he swishes it away with his hand. Some of us appeal, and he is given out.

The other team started complaining that we were out of order, it was against the spirit of the game to appeal etc.

My view is that if they put a young lad in at number three knowing we have out quick on, on a lively pitch, they must have aknowledged he can hold a bat. If he can hold a bat, then we need to get him out as quickly as poss. By handling the ball, he broke one of the laws of the game. Even if he didn't know that law, that was not our problem, and he has learnt a lesson.

But even if he was a crappy batsman, would we have been within the spirit of the game if we had appealed for handled ball?

Any thoughts?

 

[pasag]

Nah nothing wrong in what you did, don't think it breaks the spirit either, sounds rather silly on their part to me tbh, on both counts.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Any thoughts?

You play what's put in front of you. If you play in a men's grade and boys turn up, why should you not play 100% - how do you know that one of those 15 year olds isn't Billy Godleman or Jesse Ryder? Show no quarter, and that 15 year old is an imbicile for swiping the ball away from the stumps with his hand, if he'd used the bat, he wouldn't have been out. I would have sent him on his way with a barrage of abuse.

 

[Perm]

Treat him like everyone else, he could be a real gun.

 

[Swervy]

You play what's put in front of you. If you play in a men's grade and boys turn up, why should you not play 100% - how do you know that one of those 15 year olds isn't Billy Godleman or Jesse Ryder? Show no quarter, and that 15 year old is an imbicile for swiping the ball away from the stumps with his hand, if he'd used the bat, he wouldn't have been out. I would have sent him on his way with a barrage of abuse.

haha...I will get some sledges prepared beforehand for the next time

 

[Swervy]

just to continue the story a little bit more...the atmosphere between the two teams didn't really improve as the game went on.

We got them out for 71

We managed to get to 68 without loss, with our skipper on 46*. They brought on a young lad (against about 14/15 years old, bowling what looked like leggies), our captain, came down the pitch, missed the ball, keeper whips off the bails.

Problem is the square leg umpire didn't see it as being out (it probably was out to be honest)...the problem is compounded by the fact that in our league we don't have enough umpires, and so the fielding team has to cover for the square leg ump. At that time, the ump was our fast bowler!!!! It would have been this young lads first ever wicket apparently. Next ball was a no-ball that was dispatched to the boundary, skipper gets his 50, and we win by 10 wickets

Lets just say they didn't shake our hands before they left the ground!

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Problem is the square leg umpire didn't see it as being out (it probably was out to be honest)...the problem is compounded by the fact that in our league we don't have enough umpires, and so the fielding team has to cover for the square leg ump. At that time, the ump was our fast bowler!!!! It would have been this young lads first ever wicket apparently. Next ball was a no-ball that was dispatched to the boundary, skipper gets his 50, and we win by 10 wickets

That ain't so funny. If you've got to provide an umpire, they should at least be able to pay attention long enough to do the little bit you have to do at square leg.

 

[Swervy]

That ain't so funny. If you've got to provide an umpire, they should at least be able to pay attention long enough to do the little bit you have to do at square leg.

well it happens, with 4 runs to win, with no threat of any wickets falling before then, it is understandable that ones attention slips..and it wasn't as though he was half way down the wicket either. Itwas a split secod between bails off and foot down. He said he didn't think it was out. Everyone else thought it might have been

 

[Tom Halsey]

It's their problem if they've picked someone who shouldn't be playing at that level, shouldn't have to accomodate them.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Yeah, their problem entirely. I'd be tempted to repeatedly dig it in short at him and make him and the rest of his team think about sending him in up the order.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't think there's anything wrong with the dismissal, although the non-sighted square-leg ump was maybe a bit unfortunate. Might've been more politic to give him out given the result wasn't in any doubt. Moral relativism ftw.

 

[Goughy]

If a 15 yr old is any good he should be playing 1st team cricket anf treated as such.

If the general standard is not the highest then maybe the opening bowler should look to find a club more of his standard.

If it is a good league then 15 yr olds that play should take what they are given, if it is a low standard then some common sense comes into play. However, 15 isnt young.

What league was it in? In know the different Yorkshire leagues pretty well.

 

[Poker Boy]

IMO you just treat them like adults and if they aren't good enough that's the other team's problem. And in any case there could be a prodigy lurking among them - didn't the great Neil Harvey play club cricket in Australia at a young age?

 

[andyc]

Agree with everyone above here; if they turn up to play, treat them like anyone else.

 

[oz_fan]

Definately treat him like everybody else. If they really think he is at "risk" out there they shouldn't have sent them in.
On the other hand I think it should have been agreed that the captain was out in that situation.

 

[howardj]

This one cropped up when I was playing on Saturday..and a few weeks ago

We had played this team a few weeks ago, and they played a couple of young lads (15 year olds) in their team. They made a few whisphered moans about the fact that our opening bowler, who is pretty quick, didn't slow down for these younger lads.

Should we have taken off our quick bowler, or at least asked him drop a yard or two in pace?


Then we played against the same team on Saturday, the pitch is a bit lively, and our opening bowler is bowling pretty quickly. We take a wicket, and they send in one of these 15 year old lads in at number three. The fourth ball he gets, hits him in the grill of the helmet, and the ball hits the ground and rolls to the stumps. The young lad is shaken up, but sees the ball rolling and he swishes it away with his hand. Some of us appeal, and he is given out.

The other team started complaining that we were out of order, it was against the spirit of the game to appeal etc.

My view is that if they put a young lad in at number three knowing we have out quick on, on a lively pitch, they must have aknowledged he can hold a bat. If he can hold a bat, then we need to get him out as quickly as poss. By handling the ball, he broke one of the laws of the game. Even if he didn't know that law, that was not our problem, and he has learnt a lesson.

But even if he was a crappy batsman, would we have been within the spirit of the game if we had appealed for handled ball?

Any thoughts?

Mate, you did the right thing. Play hard or go home. I just simply do not see the point in giving up some of your weekend playing sport, and then going anything other than flat out. It's just rubbish playing half hearted.

 

[Burgey]

IMO you just treat them like adults and if they aren't good enough that's the other team's problem. And in any case there could be a prodigy lurking among them - didn't the great Neil Harvey play club cricket in Australia at a young age?

And test cricket at 17, iirc.

Anyway, it seems to me that if they were sending the pup out at 3, they were trying to get you guys to compromise your plan by maybe taking your quick off in helpful conditions. Assuming the lad doesn't normally bat 3, why put him in there on a sporting wicket against a quickish bowler unless you want the fielding side to go soft on him and thereby get an advantage for your own side? If he does normaly bat 3, then there's no problem in any event and frankly it's a disgrace your opening bowler didn't follow through and give him a massive spray.

Harden up!!

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

And test cricket at 17, iirc.

Anyway, it seems to me that if they were sending the pup out at 3, they were trying to get you guys to compromise your plan by maybe taking your quick off in helpful conditions. Assuming the lad doesn't normally bat 3, why put him in there on a sporting wicket against a quickish bowler unless you want the fielding side to go soft on him and thereby get an advantage for your own side? If he does normaly bat 3, then there's no problem in any event and frankly it's a disgrace your opening bowler didn't follow through and give him a massive spray.

Harden up!!

Yeah, exactly what I thought. More like the opposing team was against the spirit of the game for sending the young man in to try and gain an unfair advantage.

 

[Ash_A55]

No you shouldn't take him off, I've being playin senoir cricket since 14, and I know exactly where you are coming from. The young lads should just get on with it, you can't ask Brett Lee to slow down because he's a bit fast. So what if the lads are 15? They are going to face those bowlers sooner or later.

 

[SJS]

Nah nothing wrong in what you did, don't think it breaks the spirit either, sounds rather silly on their part to me tbh, on both counts.

Totally agree.

Fifteen is not THAT young for club and league cricket. I played my first senior devision game at 15 and regularly from 16. There were no helmets in those days and the bowlers showed absolutely no mercy. And that was forty years ago when it was slightly more 'gentlemanly' than today.

No you were right.