With gentle persistence writers, bloggers, etc choose their words to portray themselves as likable, admirable, lovable even. If people like what they read, they might possibly like, admire, love you, is the rationale, I think. The aim here is different; to prove I’m a conceited knave, quarrelsome and disagreeable sod. These failings spill out in my run-in with that paragon of modern virtue: the Middlesex County Cricket League and its disciplinary committee.
October 13th. Charlie Puckett, Hon Sec of the Middlesex league writes : “at Ealing CC on 1st October, the decision of the committee was to suspend Mr Redfern for a period of two weeks, effective from the start of the 2010 season…..Please advise Mr Redfern that he has the right to appeal …”
Appeal the same penalty as team mate who said ‘either you’re ***king blind, or you’re a ***king cheat or you don’t know what you’re ***king doing’ at the umpire. Hard not to bore at length on this matter. Click here for ‘previous’.
MCCL players, gonna dissent? Do it liberally. Penalty is the same. Don’t question the technical knowledge of the umpire as I did: ‘that’s pitched a foot outside leg stump, how can you give that’?
Curse like mandarin Richard Mottram. He of ‘we’re ***ked, you’re ***kcked, I’m ***ked, we’re all ***ked’ fame. Or opt for a grammatical gem: ‘umpire you ***king ***ked ***k ***king ***ked up’.
Oppo alleged I swore at the umpire. Non-striker and square leg umpire said that didn’t happen. Gotta believe them. They confirmed the poetry of my team mate- the other bad boy. Good witnesses no? Sadly they couldn’t help with oppo fine leg who claimed that within his earshot, sometime after my dismissal I said “your umpire is a ***king disgrace”. I denied this.
“Only evidence not in doubt is I showed some dissent and you’ve got to decide how serious it was”, I said
“Yes that’s right” said committee chairman.
“Next on agenda; comments in your blog”.
“You’ve no authority”, I said.
”Yes we do”, said chairman, who cited section 2 para b (ii) disputing an umpire’s decision or reacting in an obviously provocative or disapproving manner towards the umpire at any time. “At any time” covered the internet they claimed.
Cos I’m the hero of my own story, surf my own arc, I pointed their eyes to the paragraph governing the sub paragraph they cited: each player shall conduct himself with the spirit of the game on the field at all times………. the field shall include any part of the cricket ground and not merely the field of play. That’s your remit; the field of play, not the net. Anyone can comment, rant interminably there unless you change your laws to cover it. Good luck on that one. MCCL bans opinion on world wide web.
But the committee innocently questioned blog didn’t they? Not looking for more rope to hang with were they? No. It took genius to spot the all important framing paragraph that precedes by two lines the one chairman cited. Not a sign of stercorem pro cerebro habes was it? No not a sign. Appeal the decision? At £50, I’d rather join the BNP. I’ll sit here on mount self martyrdom feeling superior, looking down and enjoying the view beneath.
Disciplinary committee: Bob Fisher, Clifford Pile, Roger Kingdon
Convenor: Charlie Puckett Hon Sec.
3 Comments
Jrod, thanks for the solidarity. Sadly the world is full of numpties many of whom have caput tuum in ano est.
Solidarity comrade etc etc
http://thesillymidoff.blogspot.com/2009/10/banned-for-two-games-for-blogging.html
Ta SMO,
to be fair to MCCL, something they didn’t afford me, I wasn’t banned for blogging though they did try to add it my wrap or is it rap sheet. There was no explanation of the penalty though; so for all I know they could have done me for dissent in the blog.
All you can do is laugh.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] 2009 October 27 tags: get a hundred, MCCL, umpiring by Jrod Poor old Tom Redfern from Get a Hundred was banned for two games by the MCCL for showing dissent to an [...]
Post a Comment