New LCU clubs

TheDrog

I heard recently that Greystones are entering a team into the league, has anyone heard what other sides will be joining them? I presume Swords are likely to be one of them.

TheDrog

ripped off from the Sandyford forum
1. Greystones (Division 10)
2. Clonee (Divsion 8 or 9)
3. Adamstown 2 (Division 14)
4. Ring Common (Division 10'ish)
5. Balbriggan 3 (Division 14)
6. Leinster 8 (Division 14)
7. Cabinteely (Division 11'ish)
8. Swords (Divison 11'ish)

Renno

The full list of which clubs will be playing in which division in 2012 is on the LCU website http://www.cricketleinster.ie/news/open-league-structure-for-2012-announced

Gyalist

Hmmm, maybe I should come out of retirement to pick up some easy runs and cheap wickets.

prettygurrly

yay greystones....wish i still lived there...would have been so handy being down the road instead of travelling to dubin 3 times per week to play. of course there's probably no ladies teams.

TheDrog

not sure you would find them as easy to come by as you might think, the standard in the lower leagues has risen over the last couple of years, in part because of the new teams who tend to have a few very good players involved who are capable of playing at far higher levels.

Gordon Gecko

TheDrog wrote: »

not sure you would find them as easy to come by as you might think, the standard in the lower leagues has risen over the last couple of years, in part because of the new teams who tend to have a few very good players involved who are capable of playing at far higher levels.

Yeah a few ringers will cause at least one of those teams to walk a lower league, e.g. Div 11 last season

crackit

I'm going to agree with both of you there lads.

There has been a rise in the standard of cricket at the lower levels and no doubt about it. I think there is more coaching and activity at most clubs so the base standard is better. There is also a much bigger pool for clubs to pick from. Sure the lower teams will always be the last looked after but generally now most clubs have a choice of who to pick rather than finding any XI bodies just to fill out a team.

That said there are some serious issues with ringers. Divisions 11 as stated was won by a team with no business being at that level. Division 10 was won with some seriously sharp practice involved. There is a fine art to manipulating the starrings to your advantage.

Also I played against a team in the lower reaches who had a late 20s/early30s lad (just making the point that he's not an auld lad who is past his physical peak) who had played in Division 1 five years ago in their team.

Even if his form had dipped and he was no longer up to Div 1 standard there was no way he forgot how to play the game to the extent he ended up in the bottom 4 divisions!

Also prettygurly would you not play on a league team? I've played on teams with women before. Is it offputting to have to play with men rather than a ladies XI?

TheDrog

Heard about something similar happening in the minor cup this year. A player with senior experience and similar age playing that level

schemingbohemia

I think sometimes it's unfair to slag off a player playing down the leagues, without knowing the details of the cases you've mentioned. It may well be that the club has teams quite spread apart in the leagues, the guy has spent his career in the one club and doesn't fancy moving to another one just because "his" club doesn't have a team at the correct level for him.

Players often have different commitments as they get a bit older, they may well have had a falling out with the skipper of the higher team or be coming back from an injury - they may even like the lack of pressure or craic at the lower level. From having played with Dundrum too it may also be from wanting to play with lads from your own region at home in India. It's not necessarily something devious!

By the way, I've never played higher than Div 9 (I think) other than when teams above were very very very desperate for numbers. In the cups, it's a different matter where you have someone deliberately dropping down, that's really annoying and greater attention should be paid to that, once you've played X games in Divisions higher then you can't play in a lower cup or something might be a solution.

crackit

For the record I didn't slag anyone off.

Second thing. The lad in question just dropped down the leagues. He got handy runs against us in no time. I think it was 50 off 19 and then went on to dismantle another team shortly after scoring 100 odd not out off 25 balls in another game. The club he plays for have 5 or 6 teams. It's cheating.

As for your lack or pressure/craic. Boo hoo. Dropping way below your standard and destroying teams not at your actual level shouldn't be allowed just because you fancy it. Same goes with playing with lads from your own region :rolleyes:. Absolutely no excuse to be going down and playing way below your level. It might suit that one player that drops down but it ruins the game for the other team who are playing at their own standard and not 10 divisions below.

Those are awful excuse for that kind of carry on you've come up with.

The only one that flies with me is serious injury. This lad wasn't seriously injured believe me. Even then your 'rehab' being 10 divisions below your standard isn't fair IMO.

It's a real bug bare with me. I've seen too many games ruined by a total ringer showing up. I could give you loads of examples but the worst of it was a rescheduled midweek game. We all got a day off work and expected a close game. The opposition turned up with a mystery bowler (in his only apperance of the season :rolleyes:) who was about 20-25 kph quicker (with great accuracy) than anything I've ever seen around our level and he finished with 10-7-3-8. We were bowled out for 20 odd and the game was over within 90 minutes of it starting. A complete waste of time.

schemingbohemia

crackit wrote: »

For the record I didn't slag anyone off.

Second thing. The lad in question just dropped down the leagues. He got handy runs against us in no time. I think it was 50 off 19 and then went on to dismantle another team shortly after scoring 100 odd not out off 25 balls in another game. The club he plays for have 5 or 6 teams. It's cheating.

As for your lack or pressure/craic. Boo hoo. Dropping way below your standard and destroying teams not at your actual level shouldn't be allowed just because you fancy it. Same goes with playing with lads from your own region :rolleyes:. Absolutely no excuse to be going down and playing way below your level. It might suit that one player that drops down but it ruins the game for the other team who are playing at their own standard and not 10 divisions below.

Those are awful excuse for that kind of carry on you've come up with.

The only one that flies with me is serious injury. This lad wasn't seriously injured believe me. Even then your 'rehab' being 10 divisions below your standard isn't fair IMO.

It's a real bug bare with me. I've seen too many games ruined by a total ringer showing up. I could give you loads of examples but the worst of it was a rescheduled midweek game. We all got a day off work and expected a close game. The opposition turned up with a mystery bowler (in his only apperance of the season :rolleyes:) who was about 20-25 kph quicker (with great accuracy) than anything I've ever seen around our level and he finished with 10-7-3-8. We were bowled out for 20 odd and the game was over within 90 minutes of it starting. A complete waste of time.

You should really read what I wrote a bit more carefully.

I said there can be many reasons why people are playing at a level below where you regard they should be playing at and I gave a few reasons for that.

It doesn't apply to me, I'm useless and I do find it frustrating when you're playing against someone who seems very good, too good for the level. I've also seen players having a great day at the office and then being brutal on other occasions. I'm sure the teams I've played against where a guy got a ton wouldn't believe it was the same player who couldn't get into double figures the rest of the season, sometimes it just happens.

I think your point about forcing people to play for other clubs just because it's the right level for them is rediculous! Someone should travel 20 miles and play with strangers just because they should play at a higher level? Nonsense.

I also never said anything about playing injured I stated returning from injury there's a difference.

Also, giving out about Dundalk being put in at a level too low for them, it was their first ever season, how are they supposed to be rated before a game has been played? They weren't put into the bottom league the first season so it was reckoned they could be ok and they've since been promoted an extra division. Should the LCU be mind-readers with first season clubs? Put them in too high, they get a tonking every week, get relegated they could struggle to field a team that season or the next, it's not an exact science. I think the LCU did the right thing.

Gordon Gecko

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Also, giving out about Dundalk being put in at a level too low for them, it was their first ever season, how are they supposed to be rated before a game has been played? They weren't put into the bottom league the first season so it was reckoned they could be ok and they've since been promoted an extra division. Should the LCU be mind-readers with first season clubs? Put them in too high, they get a tonking every week, get relegated they could struggle to field a team that season or the next, it's not an exact science. I think the LCU did the right thing.

Still don't think the practice of more or less handing new clubs a lower league is "the right thing". LCU could have shown a bit more foresight. Nothing worse than driving out to the back arse of nowhere and having some ringer completely ruining the game. Division 11 was a complete joke this year in terms of ringers. Lad from Laois getting 239* etc.

schemingbohemia

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

Still don't think the practice of more or less handing new clubs a lower league is "the right thing". LCU could have shown a bit more foresight. Nothing worse than driving out to the back arse of nowhere and having some ringer completely ruining the game. Division 11 was a complete joke this year in terms of ringers. Lad from Laois getting 239* etc.

What's your alternative? How are LCU supposed to know what division a team should be put into?

That lad from Laois could have turned up for 1 nets, got given a game that weekend and got a huge score - the question is did he play at that level for the rest of the year? I would seriously doubt it.

I've played for Laois before and they're not that type of club, I know last year they used their lowest team to give a load of teenagers a game as they'd been having difficulty getting junior games.

TheDrog

The lad from Laois had already played a couple of games and made very decent scores in them a fast 40 vs knockharley and a very quick 69 not out vs Rush, he did only make 5 vs Civil Service. Talking to players from Rush and knockharley both reckoned he was very clearly too good for Div11

6andout

There are some amount of excuses, and poor ones at that, being made up here.

I'll get one point out of the way though. The fella Drog and crackit (EDIT NOT THE LAOIS PLAYER!!!)are talking about is a cheat. There's no two ways about it. A friend of mine who is also a Division 1 player and can judge players accordingly knows him personally and there was no reason for him to be playing in at his level. Theres more to it but I'm not getting into here. If anyones bothered they can PM me.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I think your point about forcing people to play for other clubs just because it's the right level for them is rediculous! Someone should travel 20 miles and play with strangers just because they should play at a higher level? Nonsense.

I had to laugh at this. It's about levels. Should someone have to travel or do whatever they have to in order to play at the right level?

Yep absolutely they should. 100%. You don't get to f**k up everyone elses day just because you couldn't be arsed playing at your own level. You've some amount of excuses for why lads should be let play at levels below them. All of them are a load of old pony fella.

Having to travel 20 miles? Ohh that's all of a 20 minutes in a car. What a burden
Playing with strangers? Eh I didn't know anyone at the club when I joined. It takes about 11 seconds to start making friends once you join a club.
Less pressure and more craic? No excuse for dropping down to a level you're far too good for. 1 players search for less pressure and more craic isn't an excuse to ruin the oppositions day.
Playing with lads from your own region in India? Still not a good enough reason for playing below your level. Have the banter with your mates back in the clubhouse after the game is finished.

And for the record chief it has been known for a player to have to change clubs to play at the level they are at. A good few years back a player at Civil Service had to move to Old Belvo. Civil Service only had a team in about the 4th division or so. This lad, who plenty of you will know I'm sure, bowled at a ridiculously high pace. So he wasn't allowed play in that division anymore because he was a danger to the opposition batsman. He was a daunting prospect then still is now and all mind you! He's the presidents son as well and the family are at the club for generations so it wasn't something done lightly.

Honestly mate the excuses you've been throwing around on here are woeful. All people are talking about here is a level playing field.

TrueDub

This is a good topic for discussion, and I'm following it with interest.

Mod warning: However, people need to make their points, and rebut other peoples' points, without getting personal or belittling other people & their points of view.

schemingbohemia

6andout wrote: »

There are some amount of excuses, and poor ones at that, being made up here.

I'll get one point out of the way though. The fella Drog and crackit (EDIT NOT THE LAOIS PLAYER!!!)are talking about is a cheat. There's no two ways about it. A friend of mine who is also a Division 1 player and can judge players accordingly knows him personally and there was no reason for him to be playing in at his level. Theres more to it but I'm not getting into here. If anyones bothered they can PM me.



I had to laugh at this. It's about levels. Should someone have to travel or do whatever they have to in order to play at the right level?

Yep absolutely they should. 100%. You don't get to f**k up everyone elses day just because you couldn't be arsed playing at your own level. You've some amount of excuses for why lads should be let play at levels below them. All of them are a load of old pony fella.

Having to travel 20 miles? Ohh that's all of a 20 minutes in a car. What a burden
Playing with strangers? Eh I didn't know anyone at the club when I joined. It takes about 11 seconds to start making friends once you join a club.
Less pressure and more craic? No excuse for dropping down to a level you're far too good for. 1 players search for less pressure and more craic isn't an excuse to ruin the oppositions day.
Playing with lads from your own region in India? Still not a good enough reason for playing below your level. Have the banter with your mates back in the clubhouse after the game is finished.

And for the record chief it has been known for a player to have to change clubs to play at the level they are at. A good few years back a player at Civil Service had to move to Old Belvo. Civil Service only had a team in about the 4th division or so. This lad, who plenty of you will know I'm sure, bowled at a ridiculously high pace. So he wasn't allowed play in that division anymore because he was a danger to the opposition batsman. He was a daunting prospect then still is now and all mind you! He's the presidents son as well and the family are at the club for generations so it wasn't something done lightly.

Honestly mate the excuses you've been throwing around on here are woeful. All people are talking about here is a level playing field.

Obviously I don't know everyone playing everywhere, I was giving general excuses, which I still believe are valid. You're using 2 examples to denigrate everyone playing at the lower levels, I think you're wrong.

But it's all opinions, and by the way I'm not your "mate".

Interesting first post though, have you perhaps made up a new user name?

6andout

Apologies if it came across that way but I'm not attempting to personally demean anyone. None of the reasons given here would stand up in front of Michael Sharp at a meeting and thats a fact though! If you told him the reason you were playing 10 divisions below the standard you've been at because you didn't fancy an extra 20 minute commute/you wanted less pressure/your mate from India,Australia or Mars was on that team you'd be told tough luck sonny jim!

It's an emotive issue for me because I've seen some young lads slip through the net because of it. It goes on more at the lower divisions where a discrepency in class stands out more and this at the same time is wher clubs tend to blood the youngsters. We've had young lads at our club and they were all full of beans and into playing cricket put off by cheating. When some lad strolls out and scores 100 of 40 or even 70 off 30 it demoralises the younger players. They think what's the point? I've seen it myself first hand. In Divisions 9-14 a 60 or 70 could account for 50% of the total scored so some ringer coming in and clobbering that many runs at a 300-400% strike rate can turn a game upside down. It doesn't have to be a ton + to do it. We've lost young players in the past because of it we had an unfortunate season where we played one such team twice in quick succession in the league and then unfortunately in the cup. 3 one man inflicted drubbings later and a couple of the young lads fell off the map.

I've talked to coaches at other clubs too and they'll tell you the same. I think the LCU do a good job for the most part. It's a tough task especially with the expansion of the leagues and teams which is to be most welcomed. I say shame on the people within clubs who make excuse for this carry on and let it go on. It's not widespread by any means but it is very much an issue with some clubs.

Just saw your post there. I signed up for an account because this is a big issue for me as a coach of young players at my club. I usually just read the forum but I feel the need to speak on this. Also I at no stage denegrate all lower league players. We have a couple of lower league teams and they are as valued as our first XI. It's pretty outrageous to suggest that I was denegrating all lower level players when I said nothing of the sort. I can't possibly see how you could make that conclusion. Cheating is out there and the small % who indulge can ruin a whole season in a particular division for the 99% of other people who play a fair game. All I want is a level playing field for our youngsters to come into and our other lower division players to face a fair match up every week.

I've said my piece and I'll leave it at that and go back to reading these forums instead of posting I've no desire to get into an argument with you about this. You should play at the level your talents are suited for and not below it. There isn't an excuse out there that will change my opinion on that.

Adios folks I'll see some of you all next summer I'm sure!

schemingbohemia

Sorry, looked again at what I wrote and obviously I was wrong to write that you were denigrating everyone at lower level. Apologies.

TheDrog

6andout wrote: »

There are some amount of excuses, and poor ones at that, being made up here.

I'll get one point out of the way though. The fella Drog and crackit (EDIT NOT THE LAOIS PLAYER!!!)are talking about is a cheat. There's no two ways about it. A friend of mine who is also a Division 1 player and can judge players accordingly knows him personally and there was no reason for him to be playing in at his level. Theres more to it but I'm not getting into here. If anyones bothered they can PM me.



I had to laugh at this. It's about levels. Should someone have to travel or do whatever they have to in order to play at the right level?

Yep absolutely they should. 100%. You don't get to f**k up everyone elses day just because you couldn't be arsed playing at your own level. You've some amount of excuses for why lads should be let play at levels below them. All of them are a load of old pony fella.

Having to travel 20 miles? Ohh that's all of a 20 minutes in a car. What a burden
Playing with strangers? Eh I didn't know anyone at the club when I joined. It takes about 11 seconds to start making friends once you join a club.
Less pressure and more craic? No excuse for dropping down to a level you're far too good for. 1 players search for less pressure and more craic isn't an excuse to ruin the oppositions day.
Playing with lads from your own region in India? Still not a good enough reason for playing below your level. Have the banter with your mates back in the clubhouse after the game is finished.

And for the record chief it has been known for a player to have to change clubs to play at the level they are at. A good few years back a player at Civil Service had to move to Old Belvo. Civil Service only had a team in about the 4th division or so. This lad, who plenty of you will know I'm sure, bowled at a ridiculously high pace. So he wasn't allowed play in that division anymore because he was a danger to the opposition batsman. He was a daunting prospect then still is now and all mind you! He's the presidents son as well and the family are at the club for generations so it wasn't something done lightly.

Honestly mate the excuses you've been throwing around on here are woeful. All people are talking about here is a level playing field.

The player you mention is a good example some others include 2 players who left sandyford a couple of years ago to play senior cricket for belvo, another left last year for YMCA, a player from balbriggan spent several seasons at north county so as to play at a higher level. there are a good few other examples about

Plates

It's great to see new clubs entering the leagues - and great to see this being facilitated by non-turf wickets.

TheDrog

its great to see them coming in and hopefully they can combine the artificials that they have now with grass wickets in the years to come.

Bobo148

Plates wrote: »

It's great to see new clubs entering the leagues - and great to see this being facilitated by non-turf wickets.

Yes, and hopefully they will develop in time to play on turf pitches. After all just cause you are limited for a variety of reasons when you are starting so it should be an aim to develop and expand.

Plates

Bobo148 wrote: »

Plates wrote: »

It's great to see new clubs entering the leagues - and great to see this being facilitated by non-turf wickets.

Yes, and hopefully they will develop in time to play on turf pitches. After all just cause you are limited for a variety of reasons when you are starting so it should be an aim to develop and expand.

If they can develop on non-turf wickets and move through the leagues why should they potentially take a backward step to play on an inferior quality turf wicket? There are clubs in division 1 and 2 that have been around for decades and the quality of wickets at that level (with a few notable exceptions) is average at best. Since when is it an aspiration to play on wickets where 180 batting first is seen as competitive?

TheDrog

why do you automatically presume the nonturf wickets will be better most of the artificial surfaces in the league are poor quality and either have no bounce or sit up back of a length to be dispatched

D3PO

TheDrog wrote: »

why do you automatically presume the nonturf wickets will be better most of the artificial surfaces in the league are poor quality and either have no bounce or sit up back of a length to be dispatched

well Oisin if you didnt bowl short of a length then you wouldnt get dispatched :pac::pac:

TheDrog

My point is that you don't need to bowl back of a length for it to sit up. you must have seen that on the sandfyford wicket, usually just as the ball went past your gloves and away for byes i'm guessing Congrats on getting the seconds captaincy by the way!

prettygurrly

crackit wrote: »

Also prettygurly would you not play on a league team? I've played on teams with women before. Is it offputting to have to play with men rather than a ladies XI?

Actually I've no problem playing with men except that even at lower divisions they hit the ball really hard. I know i'll get used to it eventually but it's a bit daunting.

i played on a mens' team in my late teens when at university which I thoroughly enjoyed.

D3PO

TheDrog wrote: »

My point is that you don't need to bowl back of a length for it to sit up. you must have seen that on the sandfyford wicket, usually just as the ball went past your gloves and away for byes i'm guessing Congrats on getting the seconds captaincy by the way!

touche :P

not sure if I should be congratulated on the captaincy or the club should be comiserated on it. We will know next September :D

TheDrog

Was deleting old emails and came across this thread, I thought it would be interesting to see how all the new clubs got on.

1. Greystones originally to be in Div9 (Division 12) 1st/8 92.44% winners ahead of Wexford 74.22%

2. Clonee Division unchanged (Division 6) 7th/8 22.18% relegated ahead of Old Belvo 21.20% and behind Rush 3 38.00%

3. Clonee 2 Division unchanged (Division 14) 2nd/9 77.19% promoted behind Dundrum 3 84.49% ahead of Mullingar 3 56.36%

4. Ring Commons originally to be in Div10 (Division 13) 1st/9 82.15% winners ahead of Leinster 7 73.00%

5. Cabinteely Division unchanged (Division 10) 8th/8 25.82% relegated with Pembroke 5 29.54%

6. Swords originally to be in Div 11(Divison 10) 3rd/8 50.83% remain in division behind Sandyford 2 68.73% and ahead of Malahide 5 45.16%

Firehen

Interesting to see how the new teams fared.

It's fair to say that whoever made the decisions regarding what divisions these teams were placed in didn't do a stellar job. 5 of the 6 teams finishing in the top or bottom two by big margins.

Having played in Division 12 and 14 this year, I've experienced 2 of these teams first hand. Greystones were clearly too good for Division 12. No idea why their players would even want to compete at that level.

Clonee 2 we played 3 times. The first was a nail biter, the last we were beaten fairly and comprehensively but in the other match we were ripped apart by a lad who was their unstarred 1st player. Looking at a few of the scorecards from their 1sts (in Division 6), it was obvious he was a decent bat at that level, making a few 50s this year and mostly batting in the top or middle of the lineup. The fact that they played him in a Division 14 match was shocking. I realise they only have two teams and are a new club starting out, but they have a deep enough pool of players not to pull a stunt like that. Even if it is technically within the rules, it's unfair on the opposing team.

Still, it is good to see new clubs emerging and I wish them all good luck in their sophmore season when they are (hopefully) competing in divisions more to their standard.

djimi

Noone from Division 6 should be playing in Division 14; I dont care how many teams a club has or how they can work the starring. The rules of starring state that even if a player is not starred they should not be playing below their level. I would argue that where a team only has two teams in Divisions 6 and 14 none of their 1sts should be eligable to playing on their 2nds as there is too much of a difference in standard.

Judging where to put new teams can be tricky. I remember a few years ago playing in Junior C against Dundrum (or Swaglok as they were at the time) when they first came into the league. They were easily Inter A/B standard that season but by the time it became obvious it was too late to change them. Im not really sure what the answer is to improve it though; maybe in the case of Division 12 from this season there is a case to ignore Greystones (move them to their correct level) and just promote 2nd and 3rd instead. Hard to know really.

prettygurrly

crackit wrote: »

Also prettygurly would you not play on a league team? I've played on teams with women before. Is it offputting to have to play with men rather than a ladies XI?

no I have played on men's teams before, particularly in college in the early days of our team when I was the 9th or 10th player on the team.

I'm now in TCD so hopefully we'll get a few games this year.

When I was travelling up and down to Dublin 3 times a week I was in my teens when there were no teams in Wicklow, even men's teams

Cots

TheDrog wrote: »

1. Greystones originally to be in Div9 (Division 12) 1st/8 92.44% winners ahead of Wexford 74.22%

2. Clonee Division unchanged (Division 6) 7th/8 22.18% relegated ahead of Old Belvo 21.20% and behind Rush 3 38.00%

3. Clonee 2 Division unchanged (Division 14) 2nd/9 77.19% promoted behind Dundrum 3 84.49% ahead of Mullingar 3 56.36%

4. Ring Commons originally to be in Div10 (Division 13) 1st/9 82.15% winners ahead of Leinster 7 73.00%

5. Cabinteely Division unchanged (Division 10) 8th/8 25.82% relegated with Pembroke 5 29.54%

6. Swords originally to be in Div 11(Divison 10) 3rd/8 50.83% remain in division behind Sandyford 2 68.73% and ahead of Malahide 5 45.16%

I only played against one of these teams this season but still feel the comment is necessary.. this team, when we played them at least, cheated their way to losing both games by seriously big margains, with stupidly awful umpiring which was done purely on purpose with the one ambition of winning, one win was by 6 wickets with about 9 overs to spare at a canter and by about 70-80 runs in the other. This was very frustrating for us and when someone gets hit on the full infront of middle and doesnt have to go you can imagine how much verbals occur in the aftermath. Fair enough we hammered them but what about the close games that they won, that team if they played fairly would not even be up to div 10 standard yet by cheating were able to retain their place in div 6 for next season, this is something which needs to be gotten rid of because there's no way a team should be allowed to survive miles above their standard purely by cheating when they're umpiring their own batting innings

djimi

This kind of carry on happens quite a bit unfortunately; Id say most cricketers in the lower leagues at least will have plenty of stories to tell about dodgy umpiring and awful decisions ruining games. Im not sure what the solution is really; its not practical to provide neutral umpires for 14 divisions, and they tried to introduce a system whereby the teams themselves provide a "neutral" (ie non playing) umpire, but it just proved unworkable (as anyone who has captained a lower league side will tell you it can be hard enough to get 11 players on a given day, let alone a 12th who will be willing to umpire for 80/90 overs!).

To a certain extent you have to just go on good faith that the majority of cricketers and teams are willing to abide by the rules and play within the laws and spirit of the game, and that most people want to have a fair game with a fair outcome. Thankfully, for the most part this is still true, and when something does happen you just have to keep reporting teams in the hope that the evidence against a cheating side will mount up and action will have to be taken.

Cots

That new rule brought in would have made things even worse as they could have an umpire muck up both your batting and bowling, I'm not asking for miracles but if it's hitting halfway up middle or the man is run out/stumped by a yard and a half and it's not given that's just blatant cheating. I know it's a bit prejudice but if there's going to be trouble in a lower league game it would make sense to appoint umpires to it rather than to a game in the division above where there wont be any trouble if they were left to umpire it by themselves

djimi

You can request branch umpires for a lower league game and if one is available then you might have a chance. If there is a reason to think that there may be trouble at a game then you could make a very good arguement for having branch umpires appointed.

The problem is that for the most part its hard to tell when there is going to be blatant cheating, and considering the cost involved in reqesting branch umpires most clubs are not going to bother for lower league games.

It is a big problem with league cricket and its something that has been/is being looked at, but there really is no easy answer. For the most part these cases come down to one teams/captains word against another, and there is no real way of adjudicating on such cases. Best thing to do really is for teams to keep reporting these teams in the hope that if enough people complain the LCU will have no option but to investigate further.

TrueDub

Please keep this discussion on a general level - specific incidents are not to be discussed. If a club has concerns with the conduct of another, please raise it with the appropriate body, Cricket Leinster. Thanks.

Cots

TrueDub wrote: »

Please keep this discussion on a general level - specific incidents are not to be discussed. If a club has concerns with the conduct of another, please raise it with the appropriate body, Cricket Leinster. Thanks.

What is the point not sharing experiences, apologies for using the name but what difference does it really make, anyone else who has had the experience against that team would know who I'm talking about. Blatant cheating is out there and really should be stopped because it is incredibly frustrating and for the record, both incidents were reported so dont start that at me

djimi : I know you can do so but at this stage with my team anyways whoever does this seemed to tell all the umpires that there's trouble anytime we play which was wrong as they were the only games we had trouble in which meant that we and not that team got given umpires for the rest of our season

TrueDub

Cots wrote: »

What is the point not sharing experiences, apologies for using the name but what difference does it really make, anyone else who has had the experience against that team would know who I'm talking about. Blatant cheating is out there and really should be stopped because it is incredibly frustrating and for the record, both incidents were reported so dont start that at me

As I said to you by PM, there are ways of dealing with onfield incidents, and posts on Boards are not the way to do it.

If you need more clarification, please PM me.

Cots

TrueDub wrote: »

As I said to you by PM, there are ways of dealing with onfield incidents, and posts on Boards are not the way to do it.

If you need more clarification, please PM me.

Your intervention has killed what was an interesting discussion which I dont even think you remember at this stage, what do you think of how these teams faired last season? Do you have an opinion? Or did you just come onto this link to look for stuff to edit?

TrueDub

Cots banned for a week for ignoring mod instructions.

There is no problem discussing the topic at hand, but we cannot have a situation where clubs are being labelled as cheats.

Plates

TrueDub wrote: »

we cannot have a situation where clubs are being labelled as cheats.

Is it safer to list all the clubs that are not considered to be cheats?

Cots

TrueDub wrote: »

but we cannot have a situation where clubs are being labelled as cheats.

Plates wrote: »

Is it safer to list all the clubs that are not considered to be cheats?

Give me a minute while I write out every club in Leinster bar 3/4 including the one I mentioned prior to moderation and being banned

Cots

TrueDub wrote: »

As I said to you by PM, there are ways of dealing with onfield incidents, and posts on Boards are not the way to do it.

If you need more clarification, please PM me.

True Dub am I now allowed to ask your opinion on this subject having served my week?

TrueDub

You're allowed to ask, but I'm under no obligation to respond.

Cheating is a problem, but there's a solution: if more people got involved in umpiring, more games would get neutral umpires, which would remove the need to have players umpire themselves.

TheDrog

I can't see a situation in the near future where there will be enough umpires to cover all divisions so why not look at a sensible situation where only 1 umpire is provided for matches outside the top couple of divisions and teams provide the square leg umpire.

Renno

One of the many things I've learnt over the last couple of years is that virtually every club feels that they are perfect, and every other club are cheats. This applies to both umpiring and starring. Most clubs are both complained about and complain at some point - the problem is widespread.

And as has been pointed out, there is only one solution - non-playing umpires at matches.

How those umpires are allocated is open to question. It can not be disputed though that the vast majority of all new umpires (whether they are members of the LCU&SA or not) would have to come from the clubs.

Currently the umpiring rota is dominated by a small collection of clubs, with many clubs not having anyone regularly umpiring that comes from their ranks. This is one way that numbers could be increased dramatically.

There aren't that many ways either in which umpires can be allocated. We have the existing way, whereby the LCU&SA allocates it's umpires across matches.

We have the tried (and failed) way of teams picking a 12th person who travelled with the team and umpires. It should be noted that the only reason that this failed was because the clubs didn't want to do it, due to the problems of finding an extra person.

A third way could be for clubs to send umpires to a local match not involving their own club. That way all matches could have neutral umpires.

What isn't going to happen though is LCU&SA umpires being allocated on their own to lower matches. Umpiring has moved on a lot over the last five to ten years, and teamwork seems to have been the biggest change - even at club level.

Of the ten to fifteen thousand decisions an umpire has to make every match, well over half of them are made in conjunction with his/her partner. By removing that partner, a massive part of the umpire's aids/duties are removed.

Gordon Gecko

I don't think the situation whereby teams must umpire their own games at lower levels is ever going to change. There will always be cheating in that regard (catches and lbws not given) and certain teams (who everyone knows) will always be more blatant and unsporting in this regard than others. My main gripes are the placement of teams who are well above the standard of the divisions they are in. An instance where a club specifically requests to be placed in a division they know to be too low is outright cheating and it is the LCU's job to take action preferably by stripping them of the title and future sanctions. That said cricket at this level will never be perfect, it'd be great if there was some way to deal with cheats but until the LCU develops a better policy it's tough titty

Cots

TrueDub wrote: »

You're allowed to ask, but I'm under no obligation to respond.

Cheating is a problem, but there's a solution: if more people got involved in umpiring, more games would get neutral umpires, which would remove the need to have players umpire themselves.

Actually I was referring to your opinion on the topic in the second half of what was said here:

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I don't think the situation whereby teams must umpire their own games at lower levels is ever going to change. There will always be cheating in that regard (catches and lbws not given) and certain teams (who everyone knows) will always be more blatant and unsporting in this regard than others. My main gripes are the placement of teams who are well above the standard of the divisions they are in. An instance where a club specifically requests to be placed in a division they know to be too low is outright cheating and it is the LCU's job to take action preferably by stripping them of the title and future sanctions. That said cricket at this level will never be perfect, it'd be great if there was some way to deal with cheats but until the LCU develops a better policy it's tough titty

The cheating thing was just me pointing out how the new teams are just as bad as some of the existing ones are.