Rules Changes - Dvca

[Tongs]

My condolences to NEW seconds for their upcoming MS season. Its going to be a long year. What a great way to develop juniors in your 2s next year getting flogged every week by MS teams.

NEW had the choice to go up, or stay in B Grade. Whilst I agree that they are going to have a pretty tough time up there, I give them credit for showing some courage and going up. Not all clubs back their own players enough to go up....

 

[brutal]

Research Eltham Collegians CC are putting forward an amendment to the bowling restriction rule for juniors players playing senior cricket. Our amendment will be to exclude spin bowlers from the current rule, thus allowing them unrestricted overs. This change will bring us into line with the NMCA and return the rule to its original status when introduced some time ago. As we all know spin bowlers take longer to develop and in most cases young spin bowlers, especially leg spinners take time to ease into a spell. The current restrictions of 5,6 and 8 over spells depending on age are detrimental to there development and are not in line with any other competition. We have sent the proposal to clubs in order to find a seconder and hope to gain support for this change. Cheers!

 

[Tongs]

Brutal, I 100% agree with changing the rule for "spinners", but what will the rule say about "slow bowlers"?

This is what caused all the issues, as slow bowlers were deemed to be spinner, this allowing them to bowl more. Then it meant if the keeper was up to the stumps the whole time, they were deemed as a slow bowler. Which basically meant that it doesn't depend on the speed of the bowler, but the ability of the keeper!

Any idea on how we can combat this?

 

[Declaration Bowler]

Brutal, I 100% agree with changing the rule for "spinners", but what will the rule say about "slow bowlers"?

This is what caused all the issues, as slow bowlers were deemed to be spinner, this allowing them to bowl more. Then it meant if the keeper was up to the stumps the whole time, they were deemed as a slow bowler. Which basically meant that it doesn't depend on the speed of the bowler, but the ability of the keeper!

Any idea on how we can combat this?

The VCA leaves it up to the umpires, but with a fairly straight-forward definition:
Bowlers of medium pace or faster, as determined by the umpire, are broadly defined as those
for whom the wicketkeeper would normally stand back or as any bowler who is not
considered to be a spinner.

 

[brutal]

Brutal, I 100% agree with changing the rule for "spinners", but what will the rule say about "slow bowlers"?

This is what caused all the issues, as slow bowlers were deemed to be spinner, this allowing them to bowl more. Then it meant if the keeper was up to the stumps the whole time, they were deemed as a slow bowler. Which basically meant that it doesn't depend on the speed of the bowler, but the ability of the keeper!

Any idea on how we can combat this?

Brutal, I 100% agree with changing the rule for "spinners", but what will the rule say about "slow bowlers"?

This is what caused all the issues, as slow bowlers were deemed to be spinner, this allowing them to bowl more. Then it meant if the keeper was up to the stumps the whole time, they were deemed as a slow bowler. Which basically meant that it doesn't depend on the speed of the bowler, but the ability of the keeper!

Any idea on how we can combat this?

I think there will always be issues with any rule but I would hope that captains/umpires would do the right thing in the spirit of the rule. I also think we are all smart enough to define the difference between slow and spin. For example Glen Turner being a slow bowler v Callum Still as a spin bowler. I don't understand why we have been the only comp to penalise spin bowlers because someone thought it was all too hard to work through the original recommendation. Anyway appreciate your support!

 

[Opener2]

Anything to do with the young offie you had bowling in 1st xi this year? Thought he bowled really well but had to bowl short spells and hurt him a bit. Very promising kid.

Good rule change.

Research Eltham Collegians CC are putting forward an amendment to the bowling restriction rule for juniors players playing senior cricket. Our amendment will be to exclude spin bowlers from the current rule, thus allowing them unrestricted overs. This change will bring us into line with the NMCA and return the rule to its original status when introduced some time ago. As we all know spin bowlers take longer to develop and in most cases young spin bowlers, especially leg spinners take time to ease into a spell. The current restrictions of 5,6 and 8 over spells depending on age are detrimental to there development and are not in line with any other competition. We have sent the proposal to clubs in order to find a seconder and hope to gain support for this change. Cheers!

 

[_Blackhawk_]

How is it a good rule change? It's a useless rule change to a stupid rule to begin with, it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Why do people think that regulating how much a junior player can bowl during a Saturday in cricket season will do anything to stop an injury, when they will be bowling all day Sunday, at school, after school, at training etc etc. Not to mention the fact that the kids probably ride their bike, play footy or rugby too which has a lot more chance of injuring them than bowling 20 overs in a day during a Saturday.

Why not propose to take away all junior bowling restrictions for them playing seniors totally? That would seem to be far more logical to me than just tinkering around the edges of a rule that is ridiculous. Anything short of that and you're just pissing in the ocean.

 

[Opener2]

Allowing spinners to bowl more overs in games will help them develop faster in my opinion.

Whether their should be restrictions in the first place isn't the issue that is being debated.

How is it a good rule change? It's a useless rule change to a stupid rule to begin with, it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Why do people think that regulating how much a junior player can bowl during a Saturday in cricket season will do anything to stop an injury, when they will be bowling all day Sunday, at school, after school, at training etc etc. Not to mention the fact that the kids probably ride their bike, play footy or rugby too which has a lot more chance of injuring them than bowling 20 overs in a day during a Saturday.

Why not propose to take away all junior bowling restrictions for them playing seniors totally? That would seem to be far more logical to me than just tinkering around the edges of a rule that is ridiculous. Anything short of that and you're just pissing in the ocean.

 

[Tongs]

Allowing spinners to bowl more overs in games will help them develop faster in my opinion.

Whether their should be restrictions in the first place isn't the issue that is being debated.

So why should a spinner get the opportunity to "develop quicker" than what a young quick bowler? They are both under the same restrictions, if its about development, then they both should be bound by the same rules. Regardless of which way.....

 

[Opener2]

Because the rule is in place to protect the backs of young quick bowlers.

So why should a spinner get the opportunity to "develop quicker" than what a young quick bowler? They are both under the same restrictions, if its about development, then they both should be bound by the same rules. Regardless of which way.....

 

[Tongs]

Because the rule is in place to protect the backs of young quick bowlers.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The rule is to protect the backs of junior bowlers. Not just quick ones. If you're going to say to loosen it for spinners to enhance their development, isn't that discrimination?

I don't agree with the rule for either type of bowler as it stands, but I think there can be other solutions. Maybe let all bowlers can bowl more overs, but still capped? Or keep the maximum overs, but keep junior overs seperate from senior overs?

 

[Opener2]

No mention of spin or slow bowlers in the Cricket Australia bowling restriction guidelines...

"The following guidelines are recommended to reduce the risk of injury and enhance the development of fast and medium pace bowlers both in game and training situations.

AGES 5 – UNDER 12 YEARS
• Restrictions in place for player
development – all players to bowl in
every match unless injured or at risk of injury
• Six (6) legal balls per over with a maximum of eight
(8) balls in any one over including wides and no-balls
UNDER 13 ONWARD
• Restrictions are in place predominantly for safety but
also for development purposes
• Maximum overs in a day includes all overs on that day
and that if a second innings commences on the same
day (ie. Outright opportunity) restrictions still apply
• For players playing more than one match in a given day
the daily restrictions should still apply"

 

[_Blackhawk_]

But Opener2, it is exactly the issue that NEEDS addressing.

I've still not heard a convincing counter argument to the statement that; restricting juniors in their bowling for 5 hours a week for about 12 fielding days a year with the idea to protect them from injury is ludicrous, when they can bowl unlimited amounts the other 163 hours a week and 353 days of the year. Not to mention all the other potentially dangerous things they do, like just driving in a car to the cricket ground or playing on the monkey bars; one of our milo kids busted his arm last year doing just that.

 

[Opener2]

I don't disagree with you mate. But the regulations aren't really meant to be in place for spinners therefore I think they shouldn't be restricted from bowling longer spells. It is a Cricket Australia guideline that I'm under the impression competitions are forced to abide by, so we don't really have a say in changing them, at least for the medium/quicks
.
There's quite a bit of debate on whether the restrictions work anyway (some argue it causes more injuries long term), been doing some reading cos I'm entering the silly world of junior coach once again.

But Opener2, it is exactly the issue that NEEDS addressing.

I've still not heard a convincing counter argument to the statement that; restricting juniors in their bowling for 5 hours a week for about 12 fielding days a year with the idea to protect them from injury is ludicrous, when they can bowl unlimited amounts the other 163 hours a week and 353 days of the year. Not to mention all the other potentially dangerous things they do, like just driving in a car to the cricket ground or playing on the monkey bars; one of our milo kids busted his arm last year doing just that.

 

[Opener2]

However I'm not sure any external stuff should be taken into account when it comes to injury prevention at cricket though, monkey bars, drive to games, swimming in a river Eg. I drive to my cycling races, could have a crash on the way, still have to wear helmet in race. Club wont let me ride without...
And watch your Milo kids

But Opener2, it is exactly the issue that NEEDS addressing.

I've still not heard a convincing counter argument to the statement that; restricting juniors in their bowling for 5 hours a week for about 12 fielding days a year with the idea to protect them from injury is ludicrous, when they can bowl unlimited amounts the other 163 hours a week and 353 days of the year. Not to mention all the other potentially dangerous things they do, like just driving in a car to the cricket ground or playing on the monkey bars; one of our milo kids busted his arm last year doing just that.

 

[_Blackhawk_]

I only use those to highlight that bowling in a cricket match is no more and probably far less dangerous than other things kids do, since safety seems to be the overriding factor in why this rule exists...and he didn't bust his arm at Milo, it was at school, I'm a good Milo coach!

 

[Opener2]

Yeah I understand that, but Cricket Australia has no involvement in what they do away from cricket hence it can't really be taken into account. Technically parents should be ensuring kids abide by the guidelines away from cricket, LOL.

I only use those to highlight that bowling in a cricket match is no more and probably far less dangerous than other things kids do, since safety seems to be the overriding factor in why this rule exists...and he didn't bust his arm at Milo, it was at school, I'm a good Milo coach!

 

[Declaration Bowler]

I only use those to highlight that bowling in a cricket match is no more and probably far less dangerous than other things kids do, since safety seems to be the overriding factor in why this rule exists...and he didn't bust his arm at Milo, it was at school, I'm a good Milo coach!

The issue is a legal one.
More than 20 years ago, and on numerous occasions since the, CA commissioned research into the cause of back injuries in young fast bowlers.
As a result of the expert medical and sports science advice it has received, it has repeatedly recommended that these bowling restrictions for young quick bowlers be imposed and enforced by all competitions.
If the DVCA does not follow this recommendation by cricket's peak body and, as a result, a young bowler suffers an injury, then the comp/club/manager is at some risk of being held legally responsible, and liable to pay damages.

 

[_Blackhawk_]

Not really DB. Remember we all sign forms at the start of the season saying cricket is dangerous blah blah blah and pay our membership fees to our respective clubs? That is basically a 'voluntary assumption of risk', where you sign away your legal right to sue for damages for injuries you may suffer as a result of playing cricket. For a junior it is no different, except for a parent or guardian can and must sign for them, as you cannot make nor enforce a contract with a minor. However, any medical expenses to any club member injured on the field or at training, would be covered by the clubs sports insurance.

Think about it this way; a young batsmen goes out in Barcley Shield and gets hit in the body and breaks a rib or takes one to the arm and breaks it. It's no different to a young bowler having 10 overs and hurting his back or doing his knee in this his medical bills would be covered by the clubs insurance, but there is no right to sue for damages due to the fact his parent(s) or guardian has signed the appropriate form and paid for his membership.

 

[Tongs]

Not really DB. Remember we all sign forms at the start of the season saying cricket is dangerous blah blah blah and pay our membership fees to our respective clubs? That is basically a 'voluntary assumption of risk', where you sign away your legal right to sue for damages for injuries you may suffer as a result of playing cricket. For a junior it is no different, except for a parent or guardian can and must sign for them, as you cannot make nor enforce a contract with a minor. However, any medical expenses to any club member injured on the field or at training, would be covered by the clubs sports insurance.

Think about it this way; a young batsmen goes out in Barcley Shield and gets hit in the body and breaks a rib or takes one to the arm and breaks it. It's no different to a young bowler having 10 overs and hurting his back or doing his knee in this his medical bills would be covered by the clubs insurance, but there is no right to sue for damages due to the fact his parent(s) or guardian has signed the appropriate form and paid for his membership.

I have absolutely no idea what forms you're talking about? I've spoken to 2 from other clubs who also don't know anything about these forms, maybe it is just your club? DB is 100% right, CA, CV, the DVCA, the club, the Coach, the captain all have a duty of care to look after their players, part of this is to abide by the rules of CA. That means adhering to this rule.

Its not about stopping doing things that will cause injuries, it is an injury prevention meassure, whereby you limit the possibility of injury. You've rightly pointed out that you can get injured a number of ways doing the most minimal things, but the rule is in place to reduce the risk of injury. Much like wearing a seatbelt in a car. It won't always save your life, and you could get hurt/killed walking to the car, but the fact is if you wear it, it is likely to decrease your chances of being hurt of killed. You may not like having to wear a seatbelt, but it is the law (as is the bowling restrictions).