• Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:29 pm**

Laws of the game changed with the batsman changed to batter and batsmen to batters

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:34 pm**

That's all well and good , but what are they going to do to describe someone who bats for both sides!?

(Please take this in the spirit in which its intended)

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:44 pm**

Makes sense. Wish they’d get rid of actress and waitress, you don’t call a female accountant an accountress do you!

Edit, not sure who “they” are but you get my point.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:47 pm**

Maybe this is why they've stopped putting a 3rd man in when fielding? 3rd person? 3rd?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:48 pm**

So my fish gets dipped into a cricketer on Friday. Yuk!

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:13 pm**

Is an over where no runs are scored still referred to as a maiden?

If so, for how much longer?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:16 pm**

ClaretTony wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:29 pm
Laws of the game changed with the batsman changed to batter and batsmen to batters

They will start calling a Six a home run next

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:17 pm**

Bosscat wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:16 pm
They will start calling a Six a home run next

You could call that a Sixist remark

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:18 pm**

Now to be referred to as a non-gender specific virgin over

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:19 pm**

They were going to call Bowlers ... "Pitchers" but that rumour didn't hold water

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:13 pm**

Poured scorn on that one

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:17 pm**

Can you still say the bowlers holding the batters willy upthecolne

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:41 pm**

What about when a night watchman comes in to be a batter.

Lighthouse keeper might be ok.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:05 pm**

What about Jimmy Anderson's swinging balls?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 pm**

Sproggy wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:05 pm
What about Jimmy Anderson's swinging balls?

Or Katherine Brunt's wobblers?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 pm**

claret2018 wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:44 pm
Makes sense. Wish they’d get rid of actress and waitress, you don’t call a female accountant an accountress do you!

Edit, not sure who “they” are but you get my point.

Because waitress and actress are historic terms gthat have typically been gender specific, accountant is an actual profession that has never been gender specific....

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:32 pm**

claret2018 wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:44 pm
Makes sense. Wish they’d get rid of actress and waitress, you don’t call a female accountant an accountress do you!

Edit, not sure who “they” are but you get my point.

Why ? Does this REALLY bother you ? Genuinely can't understand what the problem is. Also don't see what the problem is with batsmen and batswomen and think "batter" sounds horribly baseballish.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:19 pm**

What do we call a ladybird or a Hunntsman spider nowadays?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:29 pm**

Slip....sexist ladies clothing
Third man......sexist
Fine leg....sexist some blokes refer to women's legs as fine.
Square leg...prejudice to people with peripheral endema.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:33 pm**

Guller Bull wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:19 pm
What do we call a ladybird or a Hunntsman spider nowadays?

Or a "Daddy Longlegs" or "Black Widow"

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:37 pm**

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:32 pm
Why ? Does this REALLY bother you ? Genuinely can't understand what the problem is. Also don't see what the problem is with batsmen and batswomen and think "batter" sounds horribly baseballish.

“Because that’s the way its always been” is the poorest of reasons to do something illogical.

It doesn’t bother me it just doesn’t make any sense.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:50 pm**

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:32 pm
Why ? Does this REALLY bother you ? Genuinely can't understand what the problem is. Also don't see what the problem is with batsmen and batswomen and think "batter" sounds horribly baseballish.

You’ll get used to it. After all we have never had bowlmen, but if we had and then it was deemed sexist and changed to bowler you’d probably have a similar reaction.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:59 pm**

ClaretTony wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:29 pm
Laws of the game changed with the batsman changed to batter and batsmen to batters

Sorry but what a load of cr*p

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:01 pm**

When did wicketkeepman get changed?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:16 pm**

Women are from now on to be known as wo

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:49 pm**

Biggest job creation scheme of the century. ‘Man’ was interchangeable as in human… until the PR companies saw an opportunity. Humus for human?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:53 pm**

Why can’t a female ‘batter’ in women’s cricket just be called a batswoman. It’s all getting a bit silly.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:55 pm**

Batpeople.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:02 pm**

claret2018 wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:44 pm
Makes sense. Wish they’d get rid of actress and waitress, you don’t call a female accountant an accountress do you!

Edit, not sure who “they” are but you get my point.

Why on earth would we remove a feature of language that allows us to be easily more precise?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:40 pm**

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:53 pm
Why can’t a female ‘batter’ in women’s cricket just be called a batswoman. It’s all getting a bit silly.

I’m sure they can, can’t they? From what the OP says the laws have just been reworded to apply to both genders. It could get a bit longwinded if they read; Law 749 - the batsman or batswoman…

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:49 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:40 pm
I’m sure they can, can’t they? From what the OP says the laws have just been reworded to apply to both genders. It could get a bit longwinded if they read; Law 749 - the batsman or batswoman…

The change has been heralded by those running the women's game as making the sport "more inclusive" especially at a junior level where both boys and girls play in the same team. They feel a girl might be uncomfortable being referred to as a batsman.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:50 pm**

claret2018 wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:37 pm
“Because that’s the way its always been” is the poorest of reasons to do something illogical.

It doesn’t bother me it just doesn’t make any sense.

Of course it makes sense. Why should it be wrong to differentiate? Why is it deemed offensive? Taking offence has become so fashionable now it is laughable. People should be proud of what they are, not be offended by people referring to it.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:51 pm**

kentonclaret wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:49 pm
The change has been heralded by those running the women's game as making the sport "more inclusive" especially at a junior level where both boys and girls play in the same team. They feel a girl might be uncomfortable being referred to as a batsman.

Sounds like they’ve probably got a valid point.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:56 pm**

"More inclusive"

When the men and women start playing each other, then it will have relevance.

Until then it's just more sandal wearing nonsense.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:57 pm**

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:56 pm
"More inclusive"

When the men and women start playing each other, then it will have relevance.

Until then it's just more sandal wearing nonsense.

But the rules apply to both men and women's cricket?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:03 pm**

Batswoman then

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:07 pm**

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:56 pm
"More inclusive"

When the men and women start playing each other, then it will have relevance.

Until then it's just more sandal wearing nonsense.

Well that isn't going to happen

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:08 pm**

milkcrate_mosh wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:57 pm
But the rules apply to both men and women's cricket?

I don't really care, I will still call them a Batslady.

Which goes for Dom Sibley as well.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:20 pm**

What does Robin call his crime fighting partner now?

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:20 pm**

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:56 pm
"More inclusive"

When the men and women start playing each other, then it will have relevance.

Until then it's just more sandal wearing nonsense.

I think that the "more inclusive" comment was intended for junior level where mixed teams play the sport.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:29 pm**

its got way beyond a joke, who exactly are these clowns that dictate all these changes to how we refer to things?

**** the lot of 'em. If people just ignore these ideas and continue as we were, there's nothing they can do.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:44 pm**

kentonclaret wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:20 pm
I think that the "more inclusive" comment was intended for junior level where mixed teams play the sport.

Fair enough.

Although when their brains develop and they mature, I wonder if they'll notice the difference between men and women in sport.

Like why nondescript batter A has to have a shorter boundary than nondescript batter B.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:48 pm**

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:44 pm
Fair enough.

Although when their brains develop and they mature, I wonder if they'll notice the difference between men and women in sport.

Like why nondescript batter A has to have a shorter boundary than nondescript batter B.

So because women’s cricket may have shorter boundaries than some men’s cricket they shouldn’t be referred to by the same terminology in the laws of the game?

Good logic.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:55 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:48 pm
So because women’s cricket may have shorter boundaries than some men’s cricket they shouldn’t be referred to by the same terminology in the laws of the game? Good logic.

Yes that's clearly what I said, to a blind man on a galloping horse. Good grief.

Looks like you're after one of your late night sparring encounters, well you'll just have to do it with someone else I'm afraid.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:08 am**

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:55 pm
Yes that's clearly what I said, to a blind man on a galloping horse. Good grief.

Looks like you're after one of your late night sparring encounters, well you'll just have to do it with someone else I'm afraid.

Not at all champ, I'm off to bed with a book. Just wanted to let you know that your point was nonsensical.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:22 am**

I'll settle for "willow operative"

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:01 am**

claret2018 wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:44 pm
Makes sense. Wish they’d get rid of actress and waitress, you don’t call a female accountant an accountress do you!

Edit, not sure who “they” are but you get my point.

Where will it end?......Women will have to open doors for blokes! Eh, bloody hell.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:14 am**

I remember in the 70s that the great Tom Graveney always used the term ‘batters’.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:19 am**

Can we not just describe them as batsman and 6 or 7 people who follow the women's game choose their own definition?

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:05 am**

I played Cricket for nearly 30 years.

Batter was the only terminology I ever used in relation to batting. No idea what the fuss is about.

Batter
Bowler
Keeper
Fielder.

Couldn’t be more straightforward.

Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen

Re: Batters now in cricket and not batsmen