Only a game, or a life and death matter?

Oct 23, 2014 by

A parable about cricket…

by Andrew Symes. From Church of England Newspaper.

Cricket was always going to have a problem with the Diversity and Equality laws. It is a competitive sport, and therefore inherently discriminating against those who are not selected for teams, and causing distress and disappointment to those who ‘lose’. Cricket in its traditional form has a particularly heinous element, that of a batsman being ruled “out”. This goes completely against universally acknowledged British values of inclusion.

One of the most influential thinkers behind the rise of inclusive, non-competitive cricket is the author Rob Lacloche. His seminal work “Nobody’s Out” (Universalist Press, 2011) portrayed an exciting vision of the game of cricket which could have any number of participants, thus eliminating the need for team selection, and also everyone could bat for as long as they liked. In traditional cricket, if a batsman was ruled “out” by the on field umpire, he had to go, and would be subjected to the psychological distress of humiliation and ignominy as he walked back to the Pavilion. But inclusive cricket is much better, says Lacloche. “The winners are love, peace and harmony, not players or teams. We must get rid of this outdated image of a vindictive umpire putting his finger up”.

Major arguments between traditionalists and modernists have resulted from this controversy, which regularly features on radio and TV sports programmes. Recently a well known umpire publically campaigned for the modernists. In his book entitled “More Perfect Cricket”, he argued that traditionalists were wedded to an “outdated 1950’s binary model” of only two batsman at the crease at one time. “Batsmen who refuse to walk after being given out have often been victimized as unsporting villains, but they are heroes of inclusivity and non-discrimination”, he said, adding that the essence of cricket was not runs and wickets, winning and losing, but the quintessential Englishness of the sound of leather on willow at the village green, the white clothing, the ritual tea break with cucumber sandwiches.

Some cricket clubs tried to ignore the controversy, saying the important thing was that people played the game, and especially that it was marketed to the youth. “The sight of cricket fans arguing and worrying about rules is so bad for the image of cricket – its not about rules, its about fun!” said one spokesman. The England Cricket Board maintained a traditional stance in their official documents on the game for some years, although modernists gained more and more seats on the Committee.

Meanwhile the Government had started to take note of the controversy. Lobbyists for equality had always seen cricket as a bastion of hatred and discrimination associated with batsmen being “out”. In 2013 a law was passed declaring all sports clubs to be completely inclusive. Although cricket initially managed to obtain an exemption, pressure was exerted by inclusivists within the game, media and lobbyists. Soon afterwards the court cases began.  A professional umpire lost his job for asking to be exempted from officiating in “inclusive” games. A baker who was a member of a traditionalist cricket club refused to make a cake for the rival inclusionists, and was given a large fine. A school sports teacher who took care to explain the two types of cricket to her students, was dismissed for admitting that she preferred traditional cricket. In one high profile case, a batsman refused to leave the field when given out by an umpire on numerous occasions. His club declined to give him a job reference; he took them to court and the case is still pending.

Baseball is a minority sport in England, with superficial resemblance to cricket in that there is a bat and ball, but otherwise the rules are completely different. Government policy however insisted on treating them as the same game. In 2014 a few baseball clubs in Birmingham were shown to be tolerating and in fact coaching particularly nasty “sledging” whereby pitchers and fielders torment batters with insults and give them crude “send offs” when they have been given out. As a response to this “Trojan Horse” scenario, the government immediately ordered all school and youth cricket clubs to adopt “inclusive” cricket.

The ECB’s “Fudging Report” into the issue, and the subsequent peace negotiations that had been planned, were based on the premise that the version of the game which says batsmen can be “out”, and the modern type that denies this concept, both have the right to be called “cricket” and are of equal value. Research showed that the “Real Cricket” grouping of clubs, who pulled out of the talks, were experiencing growing membership, citing the view “what’s the point of playing without competition?” The question is: will “inclusive” cricket clubs attract new members to their version of the game?

 

Related Posts

Tags

Share This