On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:25:51 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 5:19:14?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> I am responding to the headline cockbreath.
>
>That's a very RH thing to do!
>
You seem to be fixated on RH things.

Ok knob jockey I'll explain it for you.
I don't see RH posts unless someone else replies to him and if the
post has been snipped as the one I replied to has I only see the
headline.
I don't know what the article said and I'm not prepared to pretend
that I do. That's why my question was related directly to the
headline.

Back into the BoZo bin you go and if you slip out again I will have to
permanently expunge you.

max.it

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:25:52 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 5:19:14 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> > I am responding to the headline cockbreath.
> That's a very RH thing to do!

I'm afraid the Liberal Bigots contingent in the ng are essentially children who constantly seek attention ... RH

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 7:16:36 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I don't see RH posts unless someone else replies to him and if the
> post has been snipped as the one I replied to has I only see the
> headline.

Which is why I explained it to you;

"The MCC doesn't WANT softer balls.
They want an alternative developed and ready for deployment if they ever NEED an alternative, eg if climate change or market forces result in a cork shortage."

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:50:16 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 7:16:36 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> > I don't see RH posts unless someone else replies to him and if the
> > post has been snipped as the one I replied to has I only see the
> > headline.
> Which is why I explained it to you;
> "The MCC doesn't WANT softer balls.
> They want an alternative developed and ready for deployment if they ever NEED an alternative, eg if climate change or market forces result in a cork shortage."

SIGH . https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/22/mcc-wants-soft-balls-and-climate-friendly-pitches/

MCC wants soft balls and climate-friendly pitches to save cricket’s future
Scarcity of willow and cane, the cost of equipment as well as the quality of pink balls have been identified as issues

By
Tim Wigmore,
DEPUTY CRICKET CORRESPONDENT
23 June 2023 • 3:21pm

MCC wants to invest millions of pounds into softer cricket balls, pitches better suited to climate change and bats made of alternative materials as part of a new research and development department that could be launched.

RH

On Sunday, 25 June 2023 at 17:08:47 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 3:13:25 PM UTC+1, David North wrote:
> > On 25/06/2023 11:30, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 12:45:43 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 2:54:41 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:24:24 PM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > >>>> They're absolutely right. It needs looking into.
> > >>>> I also think artificial pitches have a future.
> > >>> So you would be happy if cricket was played with a soft ball? RH
> > >> No, I wouldn't.
> > >>
> > >> OTOH, unlike you, I have the intellectual capability to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
> > >
> > >
> > > But ...but ... the article says
> > > MCC wants soft balls and climate-friendly pitches to save cricket’s future
> > No it doesn't - that's just the headline. The actual article says
> > "soft*er* cricket balls". ISTM that balls could get quite a bit softer
> > than they are currently without fitting the description of "soft".
>
> What would be your definition of softer balls ... RH

Balls that are not as hard as the current ones! As the article does not (AFAICS) explain WHY they want softer balls, it is rather difficult to judge how much softer they would need to be to achieve their aims.

On Monday, 26 June 2023 at 10:16:36 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:25:51 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 5:19:14?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >> I am responding to the headline cockbreath.
> >
> >That's a very RH thing to do!
> >
> You seem to be fixated on RH things.
>
> Ok knob jockey I'll explain it for you.
> I don't see RH posts unless someone else replies to him and if the
> post has been snipped as the one I replied to has I only see the
> headline.
> I don't know what the article said and I'm not prepared to pretend
> that I do. That's why my question was related directly to the
> headline.

Here's the link, but I don't think it answers your question.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/22/mcc-wants-soft-balls-and-climate-friendly-pitches/

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 05:33:01 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>> What would be your definition of softer balls ... RH
>
>Balls that are not as hard as the current ones! As the article does not (AFAICS) explain WHY they want softer balls, it is rather difficult to judge how much softer they would need to be to achieve their aims.

I don't understand it yet.

There has been a small explosion in the Camden area as the village
idiot absorbs the executive summary and 44 recommenations for English
cricket made by the ICEC, a completely independent body.

The most difficult recommendations to fulfil will be those on the
pay-parity for women and quite a lot of the recommendations on school
cricket.

There are some which he will find difficult-to-swallow but the rest of
us will applaud.

And there are a few which could be rejected.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >Balls that are not as hard as the current ones! As the article does not (AFAICS) explain WHY they want softer balls, it is rather difficult to judge how much softer they would need to be to achieve their aims.
> I don't understand it yet.

I can see a soft(er) ball being used in kid's cricket.

I think it's understated just how dangerous red ball cricket is.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 05:52:21 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Monday, 26 June 2023 at 10:16:36 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:25:51 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 5:19:14?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> >> I am responding to the headline cockbreath.
>> >
>> >That's a very RH thing to do!
>> >
>> You seem to be fixated on RH things.
>>
>> Ok knob jockey I'll explain it for you.
>> I don't see RH posts unless someone else replies to him and if the
>> post has been snipped as the one I replied to has I only see the
>> headline.
>> I don't know what the article said and I'm not prepared to pretend
>> that I do. That's why my question was related directly to the
>> headline.
>
>Here's the link, but I don't think it answers your question.
>
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/22/mcc-wants-soft-balls-and-climate-friendly-pitches/

There's a shortage of Kashmir willow that's been reported for a few
years now. Farmers switching to growing more lucrative woods, and
climate change is impacting small growers badly and that isn't set to
recover. English willow for top range bats seems to be fine.

The balls is an odd one. What has sustainability have to do with
softer? Is it softer material but the same weight? Those composite
balls that are used with bowling machines are way harder than a match
ball.

May as well have the R&D department. It's better to spend your money
on something where you might learn something and benefit yourself than
giving it away to HMRC.

max.it

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:51:22 PM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > >Balls that are not as hard as the current ones! As the article does not (AFAICS) explain WHY they want softer balls, it is rather difficult to judge how much softer they would need to be to achieve their aims.
> > I don't understand it yet.
> I can see a soft(er) ball being used in kid's cricket.
>
> I think it's understated just how dangerous red ball cricket is.

The last cricketer to die from being hit in a FC game was George Summers and he did not dies from the blow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Summers_(cricketer)

There is a good case for banning helmets because blows to the head are much more common when wearing helmets. RH

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:37:41 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > I think it's understated just how dangerous red ball cricket is.
> The last cricketer to die from being hit in a FC game was George Summers and he did not dies from the blow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Summers_(cricketer)
> There is a good case for banning helmets because blows to the head are much more common when wearing helmets. RH

I can tell you haven't played much cricket in your life.

The danger isn't limited to "death", even ignoring your incorrect statement about the last to die in a FC game.
I pride myself on my ability to defend, but I would finish almost every long innings with body blows resulting in bruises. Some quite nasty.
I've seen countless fingers broken trying to take catches - from the ball's impact. Plenty more from hitting the ground, which has nothing to do with the ball.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:37:41 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:51:22 PM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > >Balls that are not as hard as the current ones! As the article does not (AFAICS) explain WHY they want softer balls, it is rather difficult to judge how much softer they would need to be to achieve their aims.
> > > I don't understand it yet.
> > I can see a soft(er) ball being used in kid's cricket.
> >
> > I think it's understated just how dangerous red ball cricket is.
> The last cricketer to die from being hit in a FC game was George Summers and he did not dies from the blow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Summers_(cricketer)
>
Somehow I'm not surprised. that you've completely forgotten about Phillip Hughes.

> There is a good case for banning helmets because blows to the head are much more common when wearing helmets. RH

Leaving aside how much of the more hits is down to bowling approaches and increased amount of faster bowling compared to spin good luck with the lawsuit from the first person who's hit in the head post helmet ban.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 1:13:48 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:37:41 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:51:22 PM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > > >Balls that are not as hard as the current ones! As the article does not (AFAICS) explain WHY they want softer balls, it is rather difficult to judge how much softer they would need to be to achieve their aims.
> > > > I don't understand it yet.
> > > I can see a soft(er) ball being used in kid's cricket.
> > >
> > > I think it's understated just how dangerous red ball cricket is.
> > The last cricketer to die from being hit in a FC game was George Summers and he did not dies from the blow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Summers_(cricketer)
> >
> Somehow I'm not surprised. that you've completely forgotten about Phillip Hughes.

I was referring to English cricket ...RH

> > There is a good case for banning helmets because blows to the head are much more common when wearing helmets. RH
> Leaving aside how much of the more hits is down to bowling approaches and increased amount of faster bowling compared to spin good luck with the lawsuit from the first person who's hit in the head post helmet ban.

Equally, a lawsuit could be brought stating that the helmets (1) do not come close to protecting the wearer from concussion or serious facial injury and (2) that helmets cause blows to the head because they give batsmen a false sense of security. RH

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:13:47 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:37:41?AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:51:22?PM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 12:36:04?AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > > >Balls that are not as hard as the current ones! As the article does not (AFAICS) explain WHY they want softer balls, it is rather difficult to judge how much softer they would need to be to achieve their aims.
>> > > I don't understand it yet.
>> > I can see a soft(er) ball being used in kid's cricket.
>> >
>> > I think it's understated just how dangerous red ball cricket is.
>> The last cricketer to die from being hit in a FC game was George Summers and he did not dies from the blow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Summers_(cricketer)
>>
>Somehow I'm not surprised. that you've completely forgotten about Phillip Hughes.
>
>> There is a good case for banning helmets because blows to the head are much more common when wearing helmets. RH
>
>Leaving aside how much of the more hits is down to bowling approaches and increased amount of faster bowling compared to spin good luck with the lawsuit from the first person who's hit in the head post helmet ban.
>
>
>
I wonder where the information "blows to the head" are supposed to be
"more common when wearing helmets" comes from.
It isn't what I have seen when playing and umpiring. In fact I would
say from my experience blows to the head when batting come mostly from
attempted sweep shots to slow bowlers.
80 joules is roughy the energy carried by a cricket ball. As far as
concussion, fractures and brain injuries go 80 joules is at the very
serious damage end of the market.

The only batsman that I ever saw being pinned on the helmet badge was
yer man Schofield(?) tallish leg spinner. He didn't even get to duck
Maybe I'm dreaming.

max.it

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 4:46:56 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> I was referring to English cricket ...RH

Even ignoring that stupid distinction, you'd still be wrong. Doubly so if you ignore the FC qualifier.
Hint: "he did not dies from the blow" happened much more recently

> Equally, a lawsuit could be brought stating that the helmets (1) do not come close to protecting the wearer from concussion or serious facial injury and (2) that helmets cause blows to the head because they give batsmen a false sense of security. RH

#1 you'd get your ass handed to you
#2 you MIGHT be right. A helmet makes me fearless eg when hooking/pulling or defending a short one.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I wonder where the information "blows to the head" are supposed to be
> "more common when wearing helmets" comes from.

Like host of his stats, from his arse.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:43:21 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> #2 you MIGHT be right. A helmet makes me fearless eg when hooking/pulling or defending a short one.

Um.. so long as you mean "more blows to the HELMET". If you meant head, you'd be laughed out of court for the second time.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:46:03 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:43:21 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > #2 you MIGHT be right. A helmet makes me fearless eg when hooking/pulling or defending a short one.
> Um.. so long as you mean "more blows to the HELMET". If you meant head, you'd be laughed out of court for the second time.

Sigh. A blow to the helmet transmit some of the energy to the head. There have also been failures of balls making their way to the face Next! RH

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:46:03 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:43:21 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > #2 you MIGHT be right. A helmet makes me fearless eg when hooking/pulling or defending a short one.
> Um.. so long as you mean "more blows to the HELMET". If you meant head, you'd be laughed out of court for the second time.

I suggest you test that nonsense with a suit,,, RH