Tornado Alley

Mom Knew Best

Looking grim in Oklahoma. Big, big tornado smashes lots of homes, stores, schools.

This must be a slow news day, for SKY has had wall to wall coverage on all day. Not much else must be happening. Actually, the next day SKY have transported a crew to ?? and are reporting live and long from the scene.

About 25 people have been killed.

Meanwhile “in 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totalled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported.” - Wikipedia

“Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.”

When I checked Fox News this morning they had moved on to other stories. One wonders what prompts SKY and the BBC to devote so much time to what we used to refer to as an Act of God.

Perhaps it's the absence of any real, dramatic weather events in the UK. Perhaps the SKY presenters felt they needed a holiday and even Oklahoma would do?

What can not be doubted is that tornadoes are a part of life on the Great Plains. Remember your Wizard of Oz? People who live on the Plains are used to tornado warnings and how to take shelter. Tornadoes are generally accepted as a hazard – but not a very large one. Storm warnings have greatly improved since the 1950's.

My mother was inordinately afraid of tornadoes. She was born in Massachusetts, an almost tornado -free zone and lived most of her adult life in Chicago. Not many tornadoes there either. Actually, the earliest recorded tornado in the U.S. was in 1671 in Massachusetts. Out on the Great Plains at that time there must have been many tornadoes that the Native Americans didn't chronicle. My Mother was just not cut out for Tornado Alley living.

Long before the early warning sirens went off she would study the sky for any sign of a funnel cloud – actually just the glimpse a thunder head would send her into a panic. She would stand at the door and scream at us kids to get inside and down in the basement. Meanwhile out in the street Reece and Albert would still be playing - as their Mother was, seemingly, oblivious to the imminent danger. Or, did they know something we didn't? I think it might have been the latter. The chances of a tornado killing you or destroying your house is about as great as Elvis being discovered working in a small café in Rickmansworth.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/10-facts-you-want-to-know-abou-1/50076

Tornadoes are dangerous weather events, but they are quite easy to spot! And, they move relatively slowly. Also, they move in a fairly predictable direction – mostly south-east to north west. With just a little bit of warning, it's relatively easy to avoid being killed by a tornado. You may have seen many of the folks in Moore, OK emerging from their storm cellar of shelter. (Again, remember your Wizard of Oz, poor old Dorothy and Toto were unable to get into the shelter with Auntie Em and the rest of the cast because they couldn't hear her banging on the door!)

Few folks who live in Tornado Alley have no shelter. Years ago, when hundreds were killed this was not always the case. Certainly Reece and Albert didn't have one – perhaps that's what their Mom knew – no use calling them in, they may as well take their chances outside. The majority of deaths caused by tornadoes happen when people are hit by flying debris. (Even a small stone or twig travelling at 200 m.p.h. can cause a lot of damage to the human body!) Therefore we were taught that if you are caught out in the open find a ditch or a small depression and lie flat. Unless the tornado grabs you, ala Dorothy, you have a good chance of surviving.

All the years I lived in Independence, Missouri I only ever saw three tornadoes. Two were in the air and did not reach the ground. No danger there. Only one was on the ground, but it was two or three miles distant and moving away.

I did see what an F5 tornado can do. My Dad and I were delivering milk in Ruskin Heights a few days after one of the worst tornadoes ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1957_Central_Plains_tornado_outbreak

44 deaths - Tornado began near Williamsburg, and moved NE through several counties. Major damage occurred in rural areas near Ottawa and Spring Hill, where homes were completely levelled and several fatalities occurred. The tornado continued into the southern suburbs of Kansas City, tearing through Martin City, Raytown, Hickman Mills, and Ruskin Heights. Entire blocks of homes were completely levelled, many of which were cleanly swept away. Many businesses including a grocery store, a shopping center, and restaurants were completely destroyed. Vehicles were thrown through the air and destroyed, and Ruskin Heights High School was badly damaged. A cancelled check from Hickman Mills was found 165 miles away in Ottumwa, Iowa.[1]

I love the bit about the check. It's another Wizard of Oz moment. Remember when the cow is seen swirling around in the tornado? The thing is tornadoes do do crazy things like that!

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/?n=ruskinheightstornado

This excellent web page give a blow by blow account of the Ruskin Heights tornado.

The Ruskin Heights tornado was on the ground for a while. Travelling south on Noland Road past US 50 Hi-way towards Lee's Summit you can still see the scar on the land where the twister tore up the trees and bushes. I expect it's still visible after more than 50 years.

You might think that living in Tornado Alley might make people take sensible precautions.

Not necessarily so.

http://business.time.com/2013/05/22/oklahomas-dangerous-dearth-of-storm-cellars

Lots of otherwise sensible folks put storm-cellar provision on the same level as whale manure. It's low, really low when compared to the dollars required to provide shelters. Most people keep the money and take their chances with the twisters.

Money talks. Bulls**t walks.

The loss of life is regrettable, as is the loss of any human life. How much the folks of Moore contributed to their own demise, I shall leave to my favourite web site - http://www.darwinawards.com/ to work out.

What is sure – people will continue to live in Tornado Alley. Tornadoes will continueto be spawned from Super Cell storms and they will continue to kill people.

The English fascination with this meteorological phenomenon continues to baffle.

Recreational Cricket 2013

To Play or Not to Play

. . . that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,

Hamlet never played cricket – at least I can find no reference to it in the play and it is Shakespeare's longest drama. Actually there is not a lot of sport in Shakespeare at all which is not surprising as guns were coming into fashion and replacing the ritual archery practice that had served England so well at Crecy and Agincourt.

Although the origins of cricket are lost in the mists of time, what is certain is that it is a very old game indeed. At the recreational level teams have been playing for centuries on local, picturesque grounds where the emphasis was on fellowship, camaraderie and downing a few pints.

Many people don' realise that cricket nearly became the national summer game of the U.S. MCC toured America in the 1840's and there were many clubs founded. What changed the picture was the Civil War. Long periods between intense warfare gave the soldiers plenty of time in camp to amuse themselves. Cricket needed too much equipment and baseball was easier to contain in the time available.

“The Toronto Cricket Club was established in that city by 1827 and the St George's Cricket Club was formed in 1838 in New York City. Teams from the two clubs faced off in the first international cricket game in 1844 which Toronto won by 23 runs.[11]

A number of early folk games in England had characteristics that can be seen in modern baseball (as well as in cricket and rounders). Many of these early games involved a ball that was thrown at a target while an opposing player defended the target by attempting to hit the ball away. If the batter successfully hit the ball, he could attempt to score points by running between bases while fielders would attempt to catch or retrieve the ball and put the runner out in some way.
Since they were folk games, the early games had no official, documented rules, and they tended to change over time. To the extent that there were rules, they were generally simple and were not written down. There were many local variations, and varied names.
Many of the early games were not well documented, first, because they were generally peasant games (and perhaps children's games, as well); and second, because they were often discouraged, and sometimes even prohibited, either by the church or by the state, or both.

In 1828, William Clarke of London published the second edition of The Boy’s Own Book, which included rules of rounders, and contains the first printed description in English of a bat and ball base-running game played on a diamond.[8] The following year, the book was published in Boston, Massachusetts.[9] Similar rules were published in Boston in "The Book of Sports," written by Robin Carver in 1834,[7] except the Boston version called the game "Base" or "Goal ball." The rules were identical to those of poison ball, but also added fair and foul balls and strike-outs.

A unique British sport, known as British Baseball, is still played in parts of Wales and England. Although confined mainly to the cities of Cardiff, Newport and Liverpool, the sport boasts an annual international game between representative teams from the two countries.

That baseball is based on English and Gaelic games such as cat, cricket, and rounders is difficult to dispute. On the other hand, baseball has many elements that are uniquely American. The earliest published author to muse on the origin of baseball, John Montgomery Ward, was suspicious of the often-parroted claim that rounders is the direct ancestor of baseball, as both were formalized in the same time period. He concluded, with some amount of patriotism, that baseball evolved separately from town-ball (i.e. rounders), out of children's "safe haven" ball games.[18]
Certainly baseball is related to cricket and rounders, but exactly how, or how closely, has not been established. The only certain thing is that modern cricket is much older than modern baseball.
Games played with bat-and-ball together may all be distant cousins; the same goes for base-and-ball games. Bat, base, and ball games for two teams that alternate in and out, such as baseball, cricket, and rounders, are likely to be close cousins. They all involve throwing a ball to a batsman who attempts to "bat" it away and run safely to a base, while the opponent tries to put the batter-runner out when liable ("liable to be put out" is the baseball term for unsafe).”
-Wikipedia

What's interesting is that certainly baseball and cricket are closely related: they both involve a bat and a ball. Batsmen hit the ball and fielders attempt to catch it. There are run-outs in both games. Both games are a goldmine for those who love statistics. Both games abound and, indeed, revel in the collation of endless facts and figures.

Difficulties arise when British people assume that American Football is the national game. It is not. Baseball is. The NFL, for all its star attractions and multi-million pound players, is just the winter sport which occupies the time until the next baseball season starts.

We move on to the recreational game.

No-one likes recreational games more than I. Childhood was a constant struggle, Charlie Brown like, to get a place on the Little League baseball team. Unfortunately, I was small, could not hit the ball very far, was only an average fielder and consequently was never picked to play. We made do with endless games on any vacant lot that we could find. We played in the street with a man-hole cover for second base. We challenged kids from other neighbourhoods to games. Summers passed in a blur of side-lot whiffle ball games - where my left-handed curve ball is still the stuff of legend.

In the fall we switched to football – American Football – and Basketball. Like the David Beckham advert, we played one-on-one basketball until it got too dark to see the ball. We played sand-lot football with and against anyone who would turn up.

Of course, we watched sport on TV as well – but never to interfere with the actual playing. The NBA seemed much better in those days and the AFL/NFL rivalry, then in its infancy made compulsive viewing.

In that gentler time there were far less calls on a person's time. TV was confined to a few channels. A trip to the cinema was a real treat and one not often enjoyed. Family life revolved around the home and your relations - with the addition of, perhaps, a small circle of friends.

Recreational cricket has a long and proud history. In the beginning there was the village and every village had a team. Perhaps the local squire or landowner provided the land for a pitch (and Captained the side as well). The game at recreational level revolved around the changing demands of work on the land. So, we start about two in the afternoon, when the farm workers had finished their chores for the day. Teas were provided, for the workers had to be fed.

Things are not so gentle now.

Villages still have teams, but the link with the land has been broken. Players may come from some distance and the local squire may only survive as the owner of the cricket ground – kindly donated or let for a peppercorn rent. Players have a myriad of distractions and commitments that would baffle the agricultural cricketer.

Facebook is used as a organisational tool. But, can also be used to tempt players to other activities. Demands on family time have shifted dramatically. Whereas our grand-parents might view a day at the cricket ground as reward enough in itself– with Mum making the tea and cakes, children playing with bat and ball around the boundary and grand-parents watching from the comfort of the quaint, old pavilion on a comfy chair; modern family life is far different. Is it progress? What's for sure is - it's a fact.

Our modern recreational cricketer is doing a constant juggling act with work, family commitments and many other leisure activities not dreamed of only a generation ago. Not surprisingly his availability for the summer game is more problematical – and getting more problematical every day.

Football too has had an impact. As recently as 1975 the First Division season featured games on the last two Saturdays in August and none in May. Now the season starts about 1 August and lasts until well into May. Cricketers can sit at home and watch football with the family instead of a day out at the cricket ground. Many are choosing to do so.

Family commitments is the number one reason for not being available for cricket next week.

What's to be done?

Local cricket clubs, the ECB and County Boards need to be aware of the needs of their recreational players. Should the format change? Should Saturday or Sunday League cricket have reduced overs (say 30 a side), start at 11:00 and be consequently be over done and dusted by 5? Would this encourage more players to commit?

I think it would.

Should we be encouraging more 20/20 cricket? Yes. That's where I learned the game. In the Yarmouth Mid-week League we had two divisions and lots of very good cricketers played with their local team – even “works teams”. Now we cannot even get six teams to commit to a Mid-week programme in Yarmouth.

How about 20-20 on a Sunday? I know Colin King of the Mid-Norfolk Sunday League is a proponent of this format. His view is Saturday should be “family day”! with very little league cricket and Sunday take over the League cricket – maybe in 20-20 format.

Doing nothing is probably not an option.

Welcome to Munchkin Land

The Land that Maggie Built

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!

I was away in Brazil when Margaret Thatcher died and The Wicked Witch is Dead from The Wizard of Oz went viral.

Sounds like I missed a lot of the fun – or funny stuff if you prefer.

Let's be clear at the outset – I strongly and fervently disagreed with the policies that the Thatcher government pursued. However, she was a human being and despite her doing her best to destroy the country (two countries if you include Argentina – not to mention the EEC) she shared a common humanity with us all and, therefore it is puerile in the extreme to rejoice at her death. I believe it may have been a blessed release as she has not been well for some time.

Those who remember her governments are split into two camps. Some think she was a visionary saint, laying the foundations for the prosperity (relative) we enjoy today. Others think she was the Devil Incarnate – taking real pleasure from destroying those whom she thought either inferior or weak and powerless. For my money she was too much of the latter.

What is without dispute is that she changed the face of the country beyond what anyone thought possible. Her Francis of Assisi speech when she took power gave hope of real change, but change tempered with compassion and justice.

Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to form a new administration and I have accepted. It is, of course, the greatest honour that can come to any citizen in a democracy. I know full well the responsibilities that await me as I enter the door of No. 10 and I'll strive unceasingly to try to fulfil the trust and confidence that the British people have placed in me and the things in which I believe. And I would just like to remember some words of St. Francis of Assisi which I think are really just particularly apt at the moment. ‘Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope’

Never did a politician promise so much and deliver so little of what they promised. Those of us who lived through the Thatcher years bear testimony that she had no interest in either harmony, truth, faith (except in her own vision of how to do solve problems) or hope.

In that respect her speech rivalled the “peace in our time” utterances of Chamberlain.

I saw on the news an analysis of her terms of office and, according to the commentator, she was not responsible for closing the pits – it was Harold Wilson. I can assure you that was not the popular conception in the 80's. Wilson may have closed more pits but Maggie seemed to relish it, and that was what the people thought and many objected to. The fact is she set out to decimate the National Union of Miners, and she was extremely successful in that undertaking.

I was astonished to hear another commentator submit that she was a warm and compassionate PM. She spent vast sums in trying to alleviate the worst of the pit closures. She raised spending on welfare throughout her Premiership. Harold Wilson presided over far more pit closures.

Remember, there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

According to the apologists she was just misunderstood.

She was also, they say, a firm defender of personal liberty. Hang on, I distinctly remember when the Kent miners were on their way to the Yorkshire coalfields to support fellow miners she had the police stop them at the Dartford Tunnel and turned them back. Sounds suspiciously like the Gulag mentality to me.

Not many people realise that but for the Falklands war of 1982 and the complete ineptitude of the Labour leader, Michael Foot, Mrs Thatcher would have almost certainly lost the 1983 general election. Unemployment had soared to over 3 million. The economy had been in recession for a long time.

Her determination to send the task force which eventually re-took the Falklands against almost universal advice from civil servants and her military advisers was, and remains, her finest hour. Not many Falkland islanders will have a sour word to say about Maggie. Whether that qualifies her for a state funeral is debatable.

So why, then, does she still conjure up so many feelings of distaste among so many?

I believe it was her shrill style and demeanour. In the neighbour test (would you like this person for a next-door neighbour) she scores so low as to not be measurable. Her public persona was mean-spirited, crass, uncaring and contemptuous. She seemed to relish demeaning her opponents, the general public and civil servants. Like many strong leaders (including Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse Tung) she seemed unable to admit that there might be another way, another point of view, and some alternative reality.

In private she may have been al those things that the eulogists say she was. To a large proportion of the public she was the unacceptable face of capitalism. She was Loads-a-money personified. She made the Wicked Witch of the East look almost benign.

As Mark Antony said, “The evil that men do is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar (read Maggie, Maggie – out, out, out.)

We'll probably never see her like again – but I won't miss that!

Association Football

For those who don't take the EDP on a regular basis and, therefore, may have missed my recent letter to the editor -

Sir

If ET lands on Mousehold, I wonder what he would make of the recent EDP

articles about the dearth of football excitement at Carrow Road?

Perhaps he would conclude that these earthlings will be pushovers?

After all, one of the definitions of stupidity is doing the same thing

over and over and expecting different results. So, if the game is

boring and pointless – change the game! It's not rocket science. The

problem is most football supporters believe that the Rules of Football

came down from Sinai with Moses on tablets. Cricket and Rugby have

no such illusions. They adapt the game to meet the modern world.

Stop complaining and do something about it!

So, what could realistically be done? Unfortunately, there is not much that could be done that could be described as realistic. Why?

One word – FIFA.

“FIFA is the international governing body of association football, futsal and beach soccer. Its membership comprises 209 national associations. Its headquarters are in Zurich, Switzerland, and its president is Sepp Blatter. FIFA is responsible for the organisation of football's major international tournaments, notably the World Cup.

The laws that govern football, known officially as the Laws of the Game, are not solely the responsibility of FIFA; they are maintained by a body called the International Football Association Board (IFAB). FIFA has members on its board (four representatives); the other four are provided by the football associations of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, who jointly established IFAB in 1882 and are recognised for the creation and history of the game. Changes to the Laws of the Game must be agreed by at least six of the eight delegates.”

I suggest that not many people know this. I didn't until I looked it up. (I'm assuming that Wikipedia are correct here!)

Still my contention holds true.

“The role of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) is to discuss and decide upon proposed alterations to the Laws of the Game. FIFA and the UK-based associations (English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish FAs) can propose matters to be discussed and ratified at the Annual General Meeting (AGM), which usually takes place in February or March.

These meetings take place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in strict rotation, as well as locations decided by FIFA in years when the FIFA World Cup™ is held. A representative of the 'host' association acts as chairman. The same country also acts as hosts for the Annual Business Meeting (ABM) which takes place in September or October.

Although the ABM can consider general business submitted to the Board by any of the continental confederations or any of FIFA’s 208 Member Associations and provide decisions, it does not have the authority to alter the Laws of the Game.

More about the AGM

Each of the IFAB members can forward in writing suggestions or proposed alterations to the Laws of the Game, requests for experimentation to the Laws of the Game and other items for discussion to the secretary of the association hosting the meeting by 1 December of the preceding year. This is then printed and distributed by 14 December. If any amendments or alterations need to be made to the initial proposal, the deadline to do this is 14 January, as topics for discussion are printed and distributed to the members of IFAB on or before 1 February.

More about the ABM

Each of the IFAB members can forward any proposals, requests for experimentation regarding the Laws of the Game and other items for discussion in writing to the secretary of the host association, at least four weeks before the date of the meeting. Any confederation or other member association of FIFA may forward proposals, requests or items for discussion in writing to FIFA’s Secretary General, in good time to ensure that they can be considered by FIFA and, if acceptable, forwarded to the secretary of the host association at least four weeks before the meeting.

Voting and decision making

FIFA has four votes on behalf of all its affiliated member associations. The other associations of the IFAB each have one vote. For a proposal to succeed, it must receive the support of at least three-quarters of those present and entitled to vote. The decisions of the Annual Business Meeting of the Board shall be effective from the date of the meeting, unless agreed otherwise.

The decisions of the AGM of the IFAB regarding changes to the Laws of the Game shall be binding on confederations and member associations as from 1 July following each AGM. However, confederations or member associations whose current season has not ended by 1 July may delay the introduction of the adopted until the beginning of their next season. No alteration to the Laws of the Game can be made by any confederation or member association unless it has been passed by the Board.

Sorry, is it me? The two highlighted sections seem to be mutally exclusive. Have I missed something? Can someone enlighten me, please.

Before I lose you completely, this seems to be the most important point in any exploration of how to make football a better game. The FIFA and IFAB websites are full of the momentus news that the introduction of goal-line technology is imminent – or sort of, kind of, maybe. I can find no references to anyone exploring ideas to make the game more relevant, exciting and fair. Looks like I'm on my own again.

This brings us neatly back to the “down from Sinai” argument and how other sports deal with the governing laws. In my original letter to the editor I mentioned cricket and rugby. Interestingly both sports are about as old as football – a least in the codifying of the laws.

“The work to draw up the first rules of Rugby football started on 25 August 1845 and ended on 28th August. The work was done by three senior pupils at Rugby School after they received instructions to codify the game of Football.”

There is a very good resource on the web site:

http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/laws.htm

What is clear is that the Rugby laws have been consistently updated and continue to be revised almost every year.

The story in cricket is generally the same - “The basic rules of cricket such as bat and ball, the wicket, pitch dimensions, overs, how out, etc. have existed since time immemorial. In 1728, the Duke of Richmond and Alan Brodick drew up Articles of Agreement to determine the code of practice in a particular game and this became a common feature, especially around payment of stake money and distributing the winnings given the importance of gambling.[7]

In 1744, the Laws of Cricket were codified for the first time and then amended in 1774, when innovations such as lbw, middle stump and maximum bat width were added. These laws stated that the principals shall choose from amongst the gentlemen present two umpires who shall absolutely decide all disputes. The codes were drawn up by the so-called "Star and Garter Club" whose members ultimately founded MCC at Lord's in 1787. MCC immediately became the custodian of the Laws and has made periodic revisions and recodifications subsequently.

In modern times the Body Line series forced a change in the Laws to take account of “leg theory”, thereby consigning Jardine's attempts to nullify Bradman to the scrap heap. The introduction of DRS has further brought the game into the 21st Century. (Interestingly, I can remember moves in the 80's to somehow nullify the West Indies all-pace attacks of that era. They were quite rightly resisted. - aside – I wonder how the Don might have fared faced with Michael “Whispering Death” Holding, Joel “Big Bird” Garner, Andy Roberts and Colin Croft – I suspect he would have scored runs but his average would have truly suffered.)

Summing up: my contention that those (perceived) hide-bound and traditional sports, rugby and cricket, embrace change where it is likely to improve the game – both for players and spectators. So, why should football be different?

I contend that it should not, and there are a few things that could easily be done to improve the game and not critically affect the way it is played.

There have been experiments in football. Tinkering with the off-side rule, messing with the goal-keepers options, etc. do not actually lead to more goals, which is, the point of the game – to score goals.

Here is something simple that would lead to more goals and not affect the fundamentals of the game. Make the goals bigger.

Don't forget the size of the goals and pitch were set when equipment and players were far different. Why not update? Add 30 cms to the height of the goals. Add 60 cms (30 each side) to the width of the goals. Result? Better game with more goals.

Complaints about the different referring decisions in different countries should be investigated. Referees should apply the laws in the penalty area – not just in other area of the pitch. Players should be booked for feigning injury – it's a form of cheating.

Simples.

Are these fundamental changes? I contend not. Is this changing the nature of the game? I contend not. Are the authorities even considering anything like this? I suspect not. Why?

See all of the above.

Richard III

made glorious summer by this Son of York

Continuing where I left off explaining my love affair with Shakespeare: Richard III is probably the most difficult of Shakespeare's well-know plays for the modern audience to understand fully.

I account for my expertise with Richard purely by chance. I don't remember studying another play between Caesar and Richard. So, I was still quite inexperienced when I first tried to make sense of it. Now, it is a firm favourite.

It is often produced on stage and in film - with the Laurence Olivier film version probably the best known to the general public. The complexity of the play arises chiefly because without an intimate knowledge of The War of the Roses (which, of course, Shakespeare's audience almost certainly had) the action and the relationships between the characters is not very easy to follow.

Sitting down with just the text to guide you is poor fare indeed. Although Richard is very much the focus, characters come and go, or are mentioned, without any textual clues to their background, relationships, families or importance. The Dramatis Personae is not much help either:

King Edward the Fourth

Edward, Prince of Wales, [afterwards King Edward V], son to the King

Richard, Duke of York

George, Duke of Clarence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, [afterwards King Richard III], brothers to the King

A young son of Clarence

Henry, Earl of Richmond, [afterwards King Henry VII]

Cardinal Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury

Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York

John Morton, Archbishop of Ely

Duke of Buckingham

Duke of Norfolk

Earl of Surrey, his son

Earl Rivers, brother to Elizabeth

Marquis of Dorset and Lord Grey, sons to Elizabeth

Earl of Oxford

Lord Hastings

Lord Stanley, called also Earl of Derby

Lord Lovel

Sir Thomas Vaughan

Sir Richard Ratcliff

Sir William Catesby

Sir James Tyrrel

Sir James Blount

Sir Walter Herbert

Sir Robert Brakenbury, Lieutenant of the Tower

Christopher Urswick, a priest

Second Priest

Tressel and Berkeley, gentlemen attending on the Lady Anne

Lord Mayor of London. Sheriff of Wiltshire

Elizabeth, Queen to King Edward IV

Margaret, widow of King Henry VI

Duchess of York, mother to King Edward IV

Lady Anne, widow of Edward Prince of Wales (son to King Henry VI) [afterwards married to Richard]

A young Daughter of Clarence

Ghosts of those murdered by Richard III, Lords and other Attendants; a Pursuivant, Scrivener, Citizens, Murderers, Messengers, Soldiers, &c.

Clear?

I thought so. What's needed here is a genealogical table coupled with a synopsis of who likes/hates/loves who.

When you get to the “winter of discontent” opening speech you better have some idea of not only the above; but also of 15th century English social mores. Without it you are going to be lost after scene one – if not sooner. As Clarence, his brother, is carted off to the Tower, it's hard to see why Richard is so happy; until you realise that the thoroughly despicable Duke of Gloucester is cheerfully plotting the downfall of his brother the King and his brother Clarence is in the way, “I intend to prove a villain” is quite clear but the reasons are very enigmatic.

The scene where Richard woos Anne (who spends most of the scene spitting at him) seems incomprehensible to modern audiences until you realise Anne really has no choice in the matter. Richard's contention that “I will have her, but I will not keep her long” seems all the more evil Anne being so distraught because she knows she will have to marry him no matter what she thinks.

Another possibility which might have appealed to an Elizabethan audience may be the many pragmatic reasons why Anne would consent to this unwanted marriage - “a woman alone at court needs a protector - there is a sense in which she wants to believe in his passion, wants to think of herself as the salvation of a "bad" man who will be converted by the love of a good woman.” (Garber p. 142) No matter how convincingly we theorise, it is still very obtuse to a modern audience and no matter how I tried to explain it to today's teenagers it just didn't, and doesn't, really make any sense.

One good thing about my study of Richard was the wider reading I was exposed to, particularly The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. Using the novel genre she examined the validity of the Tudor propaganda which destroyed Richard's reputation after his death. All very interesting, but it is wise to remember that even Shakespeare was a prisoner of his time and, in particular, was using contemporary sources for his inspiration.

His drama is not a history and even the Richard III Society would agree that Richard III is an excellent play if a poor history.

It's still one of my all-time favourites.

Addendum

The confirmation that the body found in a Leicester car park is indeed that of King Richard II give yet more fuel to the campaign to re-establish his reputation.

But, overcoming Shakespeare's characterization will continue to be difficult.

Shakespeare

Willm Shackper

That's one of the ways he signed his name.

Rash statements are my speciality. Consistency in the rashness is less obvious. One exception: I have always said that I would do a deal with the Devil in order to spend just one day with Shakespeare when he was alive and writing. I would gladly trade all the rest of my days for just one in his company. Just give me a week to get my things in order and then I'm definitely up for it.

Why? He was just the most incredible of writing geniuses. I would like to know how he did it. I would like to try to understand how anyone could so consistently produce genius, seemingly at the drop of a hat. It still awes and amazes me every time I consider it.

It was not always so. At the age of 15 my introduction to the Bard was both late and uninspiring. In the 60's studying Shakespeare was based on the text; and, as I am very keen to point out to modern students, not very satisfying, imaginative or interesting.

Studying like that was, and is, boring and almost guaranteed to put you off for life. What “saved” me was the play chosen for study - Julius Caesar.

I have always been interested in Rome and Roman history, so Caesar was a natural for me. I like history (in the 8th grade I won five dollars in the Daughters of the American Revolution history contest – I got 49 out of 50 questions correct I missed the one about Teddy Roosevelt, I knew that FDR was a Democrat so I guessed that Teddy was one as well – no – he was a Republican and a Progressive – damn Ol Teddy he cost me another 5 bucks and the first place glory).

Caesar in the dark ages – i.e. before video tape, cd's, dvd's – was a challenge for pupils and teachers alike. Why?

Simple. I told pupils why for more than 30 years. Skakespeare wrote plays, not books. Plays are meant to be acted on a stage (or as a movie). They are not meant to be read, either out loud or silently to yourself. To make sense of what is going on you have to see it!

Witness (and slip in a real good moan at the same time) the BBC – a venerable and mercenary broadcaster. Between 1978 and 1985 the Beeb commisioned and screened all 37 plays. They are quite truly wonderful, as they featured some of the most expert and famous actors of the day.

Then in a feat of the most uninspiring and possibly criminal opportunism and shameless exploitation of the long-suffering license-payer the BBC steadfastly has refused to air them again – as soon, and if you think this is co-incidental you need professional help, as video recorders became generally available. You can of course see these marvellous productions provided you buy the video from the BBC – and they are not cheap.

So much for inspiring a new generation of Bard fans. Thanks Auntie.

I do have a collection of plays that were aired co-incidental with modern technology and I used them extensively during the 90's and noughties.

Thus Shakespeare became a joy to teach. The language came alive and pupils suddenly “got it”. Fantastic.

After Caesar I moved on to Richard III. I say moved on but it was more like struggled on really.

Firstly, a rather attractive girl I knew invited me to spend the weekend at her Granny's farm. Could I say no? Not likely. As luck would have it, my weekend was promised to reading Richard III as well. Now truly it was a “winter of discontent” even though it was May.

My amorous adventures turned out to be non-existent, but I made little progress with Richard either. Why? This may be Shakespeare's most difficult play, though it was, apparently, very popular in his time. Why so?

Simple. It's a soap opera. And just like Eastenders if you don't know who the characters are and how they are related to each other you have little chance of making sense of it.

When I taught it for A level, I always spent a week (figuratively that is) in the 1480's. Unless you understand how society worked then you have little chance of understanding Richard III.

I need another blog to move the story on. I promise to do it soon.

Chiefs EoS Report - A New Reid?

Chiefs EoS Report – A New Reid in the Oboe to Play a Better Tune?

Where to start? From the pre-season predictions (and not just mine!), this should have been a play-off season.

The record speaks for itself. Two and Fourteen. League leaders in almost every negative statistic you can name. No offense and precious little defense. No special teams. More turnovers than touchdowns? Wouldn't surprise me. It was a train wreck.

Whose fault? The coaches and the GM have paid the price. They're gone. Coach Reid treks in from Philly to see what can be done. He is greeted like the Messiah. Even the KC Star is fulsome in its praise.

Let's hold on a moment. The task is now immense. Four or five years have been wasted. From the day Pioli was allowed to choose Matt Cassel as his QB for the future, all the eggs were in one basket. And, there was a hole in the bottom of that basket through which the franchise fell.

A more honorable man would have fallen on his sword. The Chiefs faithful will not forget and Scott will have to grow a long, white beard before he is welcome in KC again. But we have to move on.

Fact - every coach who lost their job at the end of the season had one thing in common – their quarterback was just not good enough.

Contrast this with the Luck and Manning story. Each took a mediocre (at best) team into the playoffs. Peyton's days are numbered (old age) but Luck will probably win a Super Bowl in the next 5-6 years, if he stays healthy.

Why? Because he is already an NFL QB and will only get better, plus the Colts can now concentrate on upgrading the personnel around him either through the draft of free agency. Bet on the Colts if he stays healthy.

The Chiefs are, on the other hand, technically screwed. Let the new coach explain: “I have looked at the roster and there are some good football players on this team. I look to add to that, I think that’s important. We can all get better – me included. The quarterback position, I will dig in and look at that and we will build it. We will see how that works out, we need to spend some time on that – I need to find the next Len Dawson. It might be right here, it might not. I have to dig in, and I need a little time on that.”

Ok, Andy, you are preaching to the converted. He goes on to say he will evaluate the QB's he has on roster. Sorry, Andy, the NFL has already done that. They are just not good enough. (I leave out Stanzl who has never taken a snap – but I'd be very surprised if coach Reid thinks he's a world-beater.)

Where do we go from here?

We get the number one pick in the draft. Consensus now is that there is not a top QB coming out of college this year. Just our luck. We either trade the top pick for a QB or find one somewhere else.

The prospects are not good.

What about the pathetic defense?

Reid again: “In regards to the 4-3, 3-4, I’m evaluating that right now. I understand the values in both. I’ve been a 4-3 guy, and I’ve played against a 3-4 so I got it and understand it. There has been an effort to bring in players that work in the 3-4, so I will look at that first and go from there.” So, my wasted 5 years theory is reiterated by Reid. I could cry.

I would like to get positive but it''s looking like another “rebuilding” job.

My solution. I'd tout Jamal Charles for a real NFL QB. Trouble is good running backs are not in short supply.

Unless Reid is a miracle worker it looks like another 40 years to the next Super Bowl.

Newtown

Gun Control

Gun control is actually a misnomer – it should be called sensible gun regulation but the chances of this happening are about as great as the members of the NRA all becoming Quakers or joining CND.

So, Newtown, Connecticut joins the sad litany of communities that have suffered such unthinkable and appalling crimes. The list is long and it is not confided to one country, continent, ethnicity, religion or creed. It is truly an all-encompassing human tragedy.

Is it possible to stop such crimes? Is it possible to identify those of us who are likely to commit such crimes? Are such crimes preventable?

The answer to each of the above is no. So, what should we do? Anything? Nothing? Give up?

The first step would be to identify the problem. Sounds simplistic, but too little is known about what makes some of us “snap” in such an unimaginable manner. We must not abandon efforts to come to a better understanding just because the task seems so difficult. As the old saying goes “ An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

By all accounts, the perpetrator of this tragedy would fit most criteria for mental illness.

Unfortunately, so would a large number of others who pose no risk to society. Are we likely any time soon to be able to identify potential mass murderers? No.

Does that mean that we should give up trying to improve mental health screening and treatment? No – absolutely not.

Next we need to consider what the role of government is in the quest for some solution – or at least some improvement.

The NRA and others would have you believe that the government can have no part to play in gun control at all because of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Seems fairly simple. Or is it?

The first part is often not quoted or misquoted. This is the part that mentions a militia. In its historical context this makes perfect sense. In 1787 most of the country was not settled. Indian intrusions in the parts west of the Appalachians were a real and present danger.

George Washington's early military career was spent in the Virginia militia. The Founding Fathers recognised that the citizen soldier was invaluable in maintaining order on the frontier. They were also vehemently opposed to the English practice of hiring mercenaries. They believed, quite rightly, that a citizen force drawn from the local community would best serve the need of the new nation. In this they cannot be faulted, even after 200-odd years. The citizen militia is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Unlimited access, use and ownership of guns is not.

It's the second part that causes controversy. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

The Supreme Court has ruled - When the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, it was the first time the Court had considered the meaning of the Second Amendment in 69 years.

In the previous case, U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Court noted: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”  This reaffirmed the "collective right" interpretation of the Amendment that federal courts had taken since 1791.

In fact, no federal appellate court had adopted an "individual right" interpretation of the Amendment until the 2003 case of U.S. v. Emerson. Yet in the Heller case a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The ruling overturned a long-standing ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. It was the first time in history that a gun control law had been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, made an important qualification, however. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he stated. "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." My italics.

it is clear that there is no unqualified right to bear arms. The question is how do we quantify the right guaranteed in the Constitution?

On one side we have the people who believe that the right extends to carrying any kind of firearm and also carrying it as a concealed weapon if they choose. Others believe the right does not extend so far. What is clear is that the Supreme Court has been very reluctant to rule on the over-arching provisions of the Second Amendment.

With good cause – it's a minefield.

The English Media is predictably confused on the issue – not quite realising that the Constitution is the US equivalent of the Queen; so, changing it is tantamount to replacing the monarchy.

Does this mean that nothing can be done? Not necessarily.

Many people have conveniently forgotten that during the Prohibition era Congress did impost limits on the Second Amendment.

In 1934 FDR took action with the National Firearms Act

Brought about by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like machine guns from America's streets. Other firearms such as short-barrelled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as well as other "gadget-type" firearms hidden in canes and such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. approval.

In 1968 we got the Gun Control Act

The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assassinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fuelled its quick passage. License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers . . .

The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21 years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns, including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles sales.

In 1986

Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

Made it illegal for anyone to manufacture or import armour piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

Firearms Owners' Protection Act

Eased restrictions on gun sellers and the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary convictions who are illegally shipping guns.

The idea that the government has not and cannot limit the sale, use, possession or ownership of guns is simply wrong. The government has and continues to do so.

The question then must be has any of this done any good?

The answer is a qualified yes.

In general crime and particularly crimes of violence using firearms has been falling. It is still far higher than even in neighbouring Canada, but the trend is downwards.

Unfortunately, this is not relevant to preventing people who are clearly not in control of their faculties from committing another Sandy Hook. People as these are not deterred as “normal” criminals are. No amount of judicial punishment or restrictions will stop them.

This is a good time to see what others are doing. Gun crime is international. It knows no national, ethnic, religious or cultural boundaries.

Norway

The Sandy Hook episode pales in comparison to Oslo/Utoya, Norway in 2011. Anders Breivik, 33, murdered 69 people – mostly on Utoya island in Oslo fiord with an additional 8 killed when he bombed a government building in Oslo.

“July 22, 2011 will live long in the memory of all Norwegians after the carnage that unfolded that day.

After detonating a bomb outside the prime minister's office in Oslo, killing eight people, Anders Behring Breivik took a ferry to Utoya Island and embarked on a shooting spree that took the lives of another 69 people attending a youth camp. Total killed 77 and many were youth workers meeting on Utoya for a conference.

Authorities said Breivik roamed the island shooting at campers, before members of an elite Norwegian police unit took him into custody.

In August this year, Breivik, who boasted of being an ultra-nationalist who killed his victims to fight multiculturalism in Norway, was judged to be sane at the time and sentenced to 21 years in prison after being charged with voluntary homicide and committing acts of terror.

An independent report into the worst atrocity on Norwegian soil since World War II blamed a series of intelligence and planning failures for delaying the police arrival on the island by 30 minutes.

Despite ownership and the type of ammunition permitted for use being tightly regulated, the report also criticized Norway's gun controls as "inadequate." It called for a total ban on semi-automatic weapons of the type Breivik purchased with relative ease.

Like Finland, Norway has a high number of guns in circulation with hunting a national pastime. According to the Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City," there are almost 32 firearms per 100 people in Norway. This compares to 88.82 per 100 in the United States.”

This case is unusual in that Breivik was arrested and stood trial. The judges ruled, perversely in my view, that he was sane at the time of the killings.

Australia
In one of his first acts as leader, Prime Minister John Howard announced major reforms to Australia's gun control laws just 12 days after 35 people died at the hands of a lone gunman wielding a military-style semi-automatic rifle at a popular tourist spot in Tasmania on April 28, 1996.
In the wave of public revulsion against what became known as the Port Arthur massacre, the move for stricter gun controls was led by Howard, who had taken office just seven weeks earlier and who, in the first few hours after the tragedy, declared himself horrified "at this shocking and senseless act."
He took his anti-gun campaign around the country, at one stage addressing a hostile pro-gun rally wearing a bullet-proof vest. He also oversaw a successful gun "buy-back" scheme that took some 650,000 guns out of circulation.
Australia's eight states and territories got behind legislation that addressed mass shootings: High calibre rifles and shotguns were banned, licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were registered to uniform national standards -- an accomplishment regarded by many in the country as Howard's enduring legacy.
Australia has been compared to the United States for its "frontier mentality." But unlike the U.S., there is no constitutional right to bear arms, gun ownership is markedly lower and American-style gun culture has taken hold in only a few pockets of Australian society -- most notably among the crime gangs operating in the two biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne.
Finland
Finland enjoys a strong tradition of hunting and has a high proportion of gun ownership, with 1.5 million firearms owned in a nation of more than five million people, according to government figures.
Gun control has also been more relaxed here. Until recently anyone aged 15 and over was able to apply for a gun license if they offered a valid reason such as membership of a gun club.
Though gun crime is rare, the country has suffered two major incidents at schools in recent years.
On November 7, 2007, a teenager opened fire with a handgun at his high school in the southern Finnish town of Tuusula, killing eight people before fatally turning the gun on himself.
Police said all of 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen's victims had multiple gunshot wounds, most to the upper body and head. Some 69 shells and more than 320 unused bullets were found at the scene.
Auvinen, who had no criminal record, obtained a license for the weapon the previous month and regularly practiced sharp-shooting as a hobby at a local range, police said.
The authorities said Auvinen, who police later described as lonely and antisocial (my italics), had posted a series of videos on YouTube featuring guns, with some hinting at the massacre at Jokela High School itself.
The following year, on September 23, the country was numbed by news of another mass shooting. Over the course of 90 minutes, 10 people were fatally shot as Matti Juhani Saari, wearing a ski mask and black fatigues, rampaged through a campus at Kauhajoki city's School of Hospitality in south-western Finland.
The 22-year-old later died in hospital from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
Chillingly, police revealed Saari had been questioned days before the shooting about a video posted on the internet showing him firing a gun, though no action was taken because he was licensed and had not broken the law.
In the wake of the shootings, the Finnish government moved to issue new guidelines on the use of firearms, particularly handguns and revolvers. New applicants for handgun licenses are now required to show they've been active members of a gun club for one year and be vetted by their doctor and police.
The minimum age for purchasing licenses of short barrel weapons has been raised to 20 -- 18 for hunting rifles. Permits are now valid for a period of five years before being reviewed.

Britain

Despite relatively limited gun ownership and availability, Britain has experienced several mass shootings in the past 25 years.

On August 19, 1987, 27-year-old Michael Ryan went on a bloody rampage for several hours in the southern English town of Hungerford, Berkshire armed with a pistol, hand grenade and an automatic rifle. He murdered 16 people and wounded over a dozen others, before he shot himself after being tracked down in a college building in the town.

In the wake of the Hungerford massacre, Britain introduced new legislation -- Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 -- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.

Nine years later, on March 13, 1996, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton burst into a school in the picturesque town of Dunblane in central Scotland and embarked on a terrifying shooting spree that left 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher dead. The former scoutmaster turned one of the four pistols he was carrying on himself.

The following year, a new law -- Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 -- was passed effectively banning the private ownership of all handguns in the UK. This followed a highly successful public campaign in the months after Dunblane that included a petition being handed to the government with almost 750,000 signatures, according to British media reports.

Britain was shaken by another massacre in June 2010 when a lone gunman, named as Derrick Byrd, killed 12 people and injured almost 30 others after a near four-hour shooting spree in rural Cumbria, northern England. After a huge manhunt, the body of the 52-year-old taxi driver was found alongside two powerful rifles, one equipped with a telescopic sight. He had taken his own life. Police were investigating 30 crime scenes at one point.

The tragedy again raised questions about the effectiveness of Britain's gun laws after it was revealed Byrd was licensed to carry firearms. The licensing application process involves being vetted by police as well as the applicant's doctor to assess their fitness to own a weapon.

Enough said? There is no American gun control problem – there is a universal, world-wide gun control problem with some unidentifiable individuals killing their fellow men. No country has the monopoly on gun crime. We are all in this together.

What's to be done? President Obama has hinted at some measures. There is very little chance that any legislation will be forth-coming. The world moves on. It's sad but true. There is no appetite in America for legislation.

But, some of the crazier aspects of local laws may be shamed into oblivion. The idea that we should have more guns being carried by citizens, either openly or concealed, is more that idiotic – it's just plain criminal.

There is this notion that maybe if the teachers had been armed at Sandy Hook or the caretaker or the principal or the janitor or casual passers-by then the tragedy could have been prevented.

What tosh!

The more people we have routinely carrying guns the more deaths we will suffer.

Of course, you and I are fine – but what about him down the road? Or Uncle Joe? Or Jasper, the coon-hunting red-neck who is by common consent three short of a six-pack? (Great – give him one of the semi-automatics, I hear the nuts saying)

Arming school personnel would only result in so many more tragic accidents that Sandy Hook would look like a Girl Scouts picnic.

Ok, let's put police in every school.

There's an idea? Maybe cops on very street corner, 7-Eleven, Mom and Pop store, shopping mall, sports event, kindergarten, grade school, high school, university and college, bar, country club, VA hospital, America Legion Hall. (This list is as inexhaustible as is is silly and fruitless. - who is going to pay for all this – the NRA – the already hard-pressed tax payer – the ACLU – it's just beyond belief that some rational people I know are advocating this kind of prescription – think – think – this would not save a single life – it never has!)

Some people are just not thinking.

Time to make my recommendations.

Let's increase the spending on mental health.

Let's try to reduce the guns in society which have nothing to do with hunting. (BTW the best hunting weapon I know of is a .50 calibre machine gun – you can hit a target a half- a mile away – I know I qualified at Ft Hood, Texas in 1968 – BTW is the NRA advocating twin 50's mounted on the back of Ford Broncos?)

Let's have a grown-up debate about gun legislation – not the silly ideas that we are currently being snowed under by. I support the Second Amendment. I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Let's do all we can to make sure our citizens are safe at home, work, school or wherever.

Cricket Umpiring

No balls and Wides

“It ain't that people are ignorant that causes so much trouble; it's just that they know so damned much that just ain't true. - Josh Billings

Applying this to cricket in general and umpiring specifically, proves that many a true word is spoken in jest!

Each Saturday in the LFNCL we have a variety of people umpiring matches. All have different cricketing experiences and (hopefully) some knowledge of the Laws. Some are playing in the match, some are local volunteers. Some are dragooned in to it, some enjoy it, some see it as a necessary evil to be endured. Not surprisingly we sometimes wonder at some of the decisions given.

Two anecdotes from last season may illustrate this. Firstly concerning Law 42.6 Dangerous and Unfair Bowling - Subsection (b) (i) and (ii).

A local cricketer told me about a game he was playing in. The bowler came in to bowl. It was a full toss. It passed the striker above waist height and hit the top of middle stump. (I have seen this before, no matter how unlikely it sounds!)

The umpire at the non-striker's end called a no-ball under Law 42. The game continued - but after the game and in the pub, the players were discussing the situation, because they genuinely were not sure if the correct decision had been reached.

I asked if the bowler was a slow bowler. Under Law 42 the ball must pass the striker over shoulder height if the bowler is a slow one - not over waist high. It was a slow bowler he informed me. Was the decision correct? Not as the situation was described. The batsman should have been given out. This looks like a case of just not knowing the Law.

Those of us who have played and umpired for a long time will remember when the no ball call was made by the square-leg umpire. Not now. It's the umpire at the non-striker's end who makes the call, but wise umpires will look at square leg for an indication of the height of the delivery from their colleague. If the square leg umpire had been consulted in the above case perhaps a better decision might have been reached.

Case two – whilst umpiring a LFNCL match I was behind the stumps at the non-striker's end. The bowler, who happened to be a slow bowler, bowled a legal delivery (not a no ball) but it was very wide of the striker's off stump. The striker moved out to meet the ball. He did not attempt a shot but let the ball pass the stumps where it was taken by the wicket keeper. He then stood staring at me in a perplexed manner. When a run was taken and he found himself at my end he said something like, “Surely that must have been a wide?”

I tried to explain the Law to him, but he was in no mood to listen. Eventually, and after an exchange of emails on the subject, he informed me that the delivery in question would have been called a wide on 90% of Norfolk grounds. I responded that in that case we are in big trouble.

Law 25 Wide Ball 2. Delivery Not a Wide – The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a wide (a) if the striker by moving, either (i) causes the ball to pass wide of him . . . or (ii) brings the ball sufficiently within his reach to be able to hit it by means of a normal cricket stroke.

This is one of the Laws that does make sense! For example, in my scenario above, suppose the batsman had attempted to hit the ball, got an edge and skied it to extra cover? He's out, of course. A ball cannot be a wide if you hit it!

Now, stop and think. Have you ever seen a professional cricketer chase a wide one? Probably not as the risks far outweigh the possible advantages. You cannot get two bites of the same cherry. If you chase the wide one and hit it, you can either score runs or get out. Is the risk worth the possible reward? Your choice, but having made the choice you cannot expect the umpire to ignore the Law and call a wide if you move and bring the ball into play.

Notice that I left out Law 25 1. Judging a Wide. Judging a wide is subjective. When umpires are appointed, it's possible to believe that consistency will be the watch-word. When players are doubling as umpires consistency is a probably a forlorn hope. Get on with the game!