Bundoora
Active Member
Understand the reasons but surely adults can make their own decisions. Assume umpires in every grade will be checking each batsman has a helmet that is compliant?
Dvca - How Do We Make It Better?
- Thread starter _Blackhawk_
- Start date
Understand the reasons but surely adults can make their own decisions. Assume umpires in every grade will be checking each batsman has a helmet that is compliant?
Southern Outlaw
New Member
I haven't worn a helmet in 15 years but have to go buy one now at the age of 45 - even if I am a number 11 who just walks out and delivers a few wild woofs before gifting a skier to the keeper or mid on.
Sport shops are going to get a nice little spike in revenue between now and November.
Sport shops are going to get a nice little spike in revenue between now and November.
quality_import
Active Member
If u don't have umpires don't wear it whose gonna check on lower grades
beenaround
Member
It is my understanding that it has not been made official yet.
I was at the AGM.
The DVCA are still investigating.
I was at the AGM.
The DVCA are still investigating.
Warwick Todd
Active Member
Scoff all you like. I've got no doubt the DVCA will be at least 8% better this year as a result of the logo change.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
I would class not wearing a helmet as coming under voluntary assumption of risk. If the DVCA or clubs are so worried about potential lawsuits resulting from an injury, have all players read and sign a statement basically asserting that they take the risk of death or injury taking to the ground and not wearing the recommended protective equipment. It's exactly the same type of thing that you need to sign to do something like skydiving. Now that doesn't absolve organisations from negligence, but it does mean that the player understands the risks of the game. I just had to sign something similar for my surgery and they make damn sure you sign it and then are asked several times if that is your signature. Problem solved.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
I should have also added, that all clubs are Incorporated associations and carry some form of injury insurance, the DVCA itself included (if they don't, they should). Incorporation protects directors in the event of legal action launched should a club player be injured ie; the player needs to sue the incorporated association as that is the legal entity and not the directors. Insurance provides the safety net to the incorporated association itself. You cannot insure or protect against a negligence case. In a case like that, if something did happen and it was a proven case of negligence in a court of law, then the directors of that association would be personally liable down to the jocks they stand in, general members of that organisation are of limited liability and to a maximum of I think $20. It would be exceedingly hard to prove a negligence case (that's pretty much what a compulsory helmet law is trying to guard against) against an adult cricketer with regards to not wearing a helmet as you could easily prove that they knew the risks in the former games they might have played or as a fan, knowing what has happened to others on the field.
I'll give you an example; say you drive into the same Wilson Car Park each day for a year. You see that the terms and conditions of entry are incorrectly displayed on the way out, rather than the way in (terms and conditions have to be displayed on the way in to be legally enforceable otherwise you are unable to reject them and not enter). One day your car is damaged, you go to sue Wilson for the damage, however they counter that they are not liable for damage at their car park because it says so in their TandC's. You might say that it was displayed incorrectly, but you have been into that same car park 200 or more times and clearly have seen the terms and conditions, however incorrectly displayed, you would not win the case as it can be shown that you knew the terms and conditions of entry before actually entering on that day. That was an actual case study I did at LaTrobe.
I'll give you an example; say you drive into the same Wilson Car Park each day for a year. You see that the terms and conditions of entry are incorrectly displayed on the way out, rather than the way in (terms and conditions have to be displayed on the way in to be legally enforceable otherwise you are unable to reject them and not enter). One day your car is damaged, you go to sue Wilson for the damage, however they counter that they are not liable for damage at their car park because it says so in their TandC's. You might say that it was displayed incorrectly, but you have been into that same car park 200 or more times and clearly have seen the terms and conditions, however incorrectly displayed, you would not win the case as it can be shown that you knew the terms and conditions of entry before actually entering on that day. That was an actual case study I did at LaTrobe.
Warwick Todd
Active Member
Bit of a sledge in the AGM minutes from the DVCA President to the Mash Shield Clubs. And I agree with him.
"Joe remarked on the irony with the bye being the contentious issue regarding Bundoora Park’s admission to the DVCA, when in fact 5 of the Mash Shield clubs gave 17 forfeits themselves totalling 29 lost Saturdays throughout the season"
"Joe remarked on the irony with the bye being the contentious issue regarding Bundoora Park’s admission to the DVCA, when in fact 5 of the Mash Shield clubs gave 17 forfeits themselves totalling 29 lost Saturdays throughout the season"
Bundoora
Active Member
No dramas with the sledge but as the leader of the organisation i wonder if he's offered those clubs any advice/assistance on how to manage the issue?
Read with interest $4,000 in fines for late/missing umpire reports. When first implemented I'd sit with umpire/s and opposing captain and do them together. Shouldn't be writing anything your not prepared to say to their face. Quick fix is to revert to this and have the umpire submit his own with opposing skippers having signed same. With another payrise for the umps, hanging around 15 minutes to ensure this is done shouldn't be too onerous.
Southern Outlaw
New Member
Team captains are responsible for policing it and both cannot let a game go on if players don't comply.
If caught not enforcing it, I believe suspensions will be handed out to both captains.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
So who's going to be the first person to walk out there without any protective equipment on bar a helmet, just to make a mockery of any potential rule about wearing one? You might laugh but I watched a bloke take off all his gear once and bat in C grade. I don't know why.
serg fernandez
Active Member
I used to wicket keep without a box, or pads, or shinguards. Does same rule apply ?
Warwick Todd
Active Member
Yes. I believe the umpire has to physically check that everyone is wearing a box.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
What's peoples thoughts on the strive for more girls in cricket within the DVCA? Despite my best efforts, 99% of girls coming through Blasters aren't interested in continuing into the team based game. Those that do, we ultimately lose them to sides with established women's teams. Without a huge influx of girls into a club, so a team can actually establish a stand alone girls team, I just can't see how it will grow.
Tongs
Well-Known Member
Maybe they were intimidated by the fact you had bigger boobs than them?
Getting a girls team up is bloody hard work, and you need a minimum of a 3-5 year investment purely to get it off the ground. You won’t get a big influx in one year, keep working hard and hope to gain commitment from 4-6 new players each season and in 5 years time you might have 2 sides worth of girls.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
Ha, you're hilarious, don't quit your day job. I've actually lost weight since coming out of hospital, so I'm pretty sure my medical problem wasn't helping the fitness levels at all. Anyways...
The problem is, a trickle of girls into the club is no good. A couple here, a couple there will just end up moving on to more established teams, because as they get older, they naturally kinda shy away from playing with the boys. A few spread out over a number of years also gives you a greater age range, making keeping that side together even harder. We saw it with our boys teams, have 4-5 players go up and you can't form a side, they will most likely move on. The problem is exacerbated when it comes to girls teams as there are so few of them taking up the sport. I just can't see where this influx of girls is going to come from, there are too many other well established sports that the girls identify with more, those that actually want to continue with sport into their teenage years.
Tongs
Well-Known Member
How do you think those clubs have created established teams? They weren't gifted them, they were proactive and worked hard to make their club appealing to girls who would've built up the numbers across time and perseverance.
captain cuzz
Member
It was one of many issues and one that had a lot of time spent on it due to the DVCA's lack of a future plan, not simply because the Mash clubs didn't want a bye (or two in some cases).
The comp want to bring one club in now (BP) and then basically wait and see what happens in terms of what's next, which just isn't good enough. There's no plan. No thought of a restructure and another Shield grade if there's one, two or three more clubs that want to join in the next 12-24 months. They don't even know how long Diamond Creek will need to help out in Mash Shield. It's all very ad hoc and glaringly amateurish. But, it's how Joe wants it, so it's how it's going to be.
Questions asked on the night about what's next, which club/s are next in line to join and fill the hole in Mash, etc, etc, were all met with "We don't know, but clubs will most likely fall over themselves to nominate to join when they see BP has been accepted". Nobody has spoken to other clubs or investigated what the NMCA are actually doing, they're just happy to say "the NMCA will fall over and we'll have our pick... maybe!" They're not interested in investigating any of this either. The only firm answer they have is that the capped number of clubs will be 32 - there's no timeframe set for that number to be reached or any work going into making it happen.
The bye was just one aspect of the discussion and Joe has cherry picked that to give himself a massive pat on the back to say he's got his way in getting this across the line. A 'win' that took him 3 rounds of voting, mind you! At least Diamond Creek have been able to fill a hole for now and appease that aspect of the Mash clubs' opposition, but nobody knows how long that will need to be for.