https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-to-use-the-term-batters-throughout-the-laws-of
MCC HAS TODAY ANNOUNCED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAWS OF CRICKET TO USE THE GENDER-NEUTRAL TERMS “BATTER” AND “BATTERS”, RATHER THAN “BATSMAN” OR “BATSMEN”.
These changes have been approved by the MCC Committee, following initial discussion by the Club’s specialist Laws sub-committee.
MCC believes that the use of gender-neutral terminology helps reinforce cricket’s status as an inclusive game for all. The amendments are a natural evolution from work already undertaken in this area as well as an essential part of MCC’s global responsibility to the sport.
The changes are effective immediately and updates have been made to the Laws of Cricket published at lords.org/laws, with the Laws of Cricket App and printed editions to be amended accordingly at their next updates.
- Marylebone Cricket Club, 22nd Sep 2021.
Good.
Speaking as a 40-something year old man, I see absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, calling the one out in the middle with a bat in their hand the 'batter', as opposed to the one with the ball the 'bowler', or the one with the gloves on the 'wicket keeper', or the 'fielders', or 'umpires', sounds as obvious as naming the 'scorekeepers', or the 'crowd'. Look, I completely understand that cricket which is an ancient game which is as much defined by tradition, arcaneness, silliness, and jocularity as it is law, should want to maintain its character but this is so much of a pointlessly small case as to be trivial. That it should draw even so much as a zephyr in a teacup, let alone Cyclone Lipton, is mystifying to me.
Granted that the use of the word 'Chinaman' to describe a left-arm unorthodox spinner's equivalent of a googly or wrong-un is obviously racist and should immediately stop if not already done so, and the position named 'third man' which is not in any way descriptive at all should also immediately be stopped, but the cries in the media that changing the name of the person with a bat to the 'batter' is both childish and laughable.
What's wrong with these people? Are they somehow confused? Words can have different meanings in different contexts. Do these people hear the word 'batter' and immediately think of a piece of cod which transcends all understanding, accompanied with chips, and wrapped up in last Thursday's copy of The Grauniad? I imagine that they must go all the way round the twist from deep extra cover to silly mid-on when they hear the word 'run' which has 154 definitions in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary as opposed to 'batter' which has just 10. What do they do when they get to the word 'wicket' which in cricket is itself a term which is variable in meaning and as unfathomable as nuclear physics unless taught from birth.
These people must think that baseball and rounders are alien games where the 'batter' is some kind of weird alien thing. Imagine the look of horror on their faces when someone asks if they'd like to eat a hot dog. I'll have a Dalmatian, thanks. They're kind of spotty and look fun to eat.
The reason why the MCC decided to change the name of the person with a bat in their hand is painfully obvious as well. What happens if you are a girl?
Wait. What?! They exist?!
Does the MCC honestly mean to say that there are girls, women, and ladies out there who actually might like to play this game?
That's an absurdity to begin with. The very thought of standing out in a field for hours at a time, watching people far away hit a ball away while your team does their level best to get rid of them, is inherently foolish.
Why would we want to pile on absurdity with absurdity by describing girls as batsmen. I don't know how that's either sensible or truthful.
The world is stacked against women to begin with. Lots of the systems which exist were designed for men. I suspect that the wickets themselves which are 28 inches tall, were designed with a 19th century gentleman in mind. Probably people are generally taller now and so women might be as tall as men were a century ago but it still begs the question. How do you promote inclusiveness and state that the game is for everyone, when the names of the players very obviously deny that statement?
Football never had this problem. Australian Rules Football never had this problem. Tennis, Basketball, Lawn Bowls, Motor Racing, Horse Racing, and Fencing never had this problem. They had players, drivers, jockeys and fencers. Baseball which also has pugilists dispatching balls to the big wide yonder also never had this problem and called the person with the bat a 'batter'. Cricket has finally joined the twentieth century as far as I'm concerned.
Aside:
The position called 'Third Man' is strange and defies sensible description. 'Point' is supposed to stem from the idea that that's where the point of the bat points. If the Slips are the first position and Point is the second, then that position is the 'Third Man' up. This is dumb. I do not think that girls and women would much like being called Third Man either.
It is in fact more of a Fly Slip or a Deep Fly Slip or perhaps Fine Fly Slip in the same way that you have Backward Square Leg on the On-Side.
I have heard the position referred to as the 'Fox Fielder' because they patrol the fence looking for strays that have flown. That puts the Fox Fielder almost directly opposite Cow Corner; which is where the most agricultural shots are sent.
No comments:
Post a Comment