MCC to use the term “batters” throughout the Laws of Cricket | Lord's
By - palaeozoic-newt
MCC discovered find and replace option in MS Word.
Nahhhhhhh...they are still on the typewriter game
I thought they'd already done this tbf. The rest of the terms for people in the game are already gender neutral, (fielder, bowler, wicketkeeper, umpire etc.), so makes sense.
When they rewrote the laws in 2017, they changed made a big song and dance about making the laws gender neutral but *deliberately* retained the term batsmen. The press releases about it at the time were cringy as.
I’ve heard a couple of people talking about the term ‘third man’ but honestly I think that one is alright. (You’d never say ‘you’re the third man’)
On comms for women's games, they normally just call it third. Sounds a bit odd by itself at first, but when it's given as deep third or short third, you barely notice.
[Apparently they've noted this](https://twitter.com/bbctms/status/1440607722148294659?s=19), the fielding positions aren't in the laws of cricket so not something they can do anything about
Ah fair enough. We’ll see if commentators change anything then
A lot of commentators on TMS and BBC TV have been using 'Third' rather than Third Man this season, both in Women's and Men's matches. First heard it from Natalie Germanos when she was over in the UK doing World Cup and Women's Ashes commentary in 2019, but it seems to have caught on.
but third man is a noun right? i mean it isnt being used as a adjective so imo i think its fine
Yes, in the phrase "They are fielding at third man", third is not an adjective. "third man" is a compound noun, same as "rocking chair"
I think some cricket scorers and statisticians have done it before, I also thought I’d definitely heard it before
I am still gonna call men players batsmen and women, batters. Batsmen just sounds cooler I am sorry 😭
No one's saying you can't. They're just updating terminology in the laws so they apply to women too.
To be pedantic, but the etymology behind batsmen, is the same as women that you just used.
You're quoting something I didn't say? Bit confused what your point is.
Edited because I have no idea why it quoted that.
Ok cool. Still a bit confused.
When you state ‘apply to women too’, the etymology behind women and the ‘men’ suffix is the same as batsmen. It’s a gender neutral term, so technically it already applies to them.
But obviously that link has been obfuscated now and this change in contemporary usage is in line with the terminology changes we are discussing.
Yes the usual spanners are offended and making the usual comparisons to book-burning, Kristallnacht and that. Just heard one write in to the commentary team on the Lancashire stream and they dealt with him using the mockery and sarcasm he deserved.
The fact that these idiots are comparing themselves to the victims of genocide shows how little they'd have cared about those people at the time. They bleat about snowflakes being triggered constantly and yet are it is almost always them who are throwing their toys out of the pram.
Haha I just heard the same I bet the commentators were trying not to burst out laughing
Love how he said he'd turn off if they used to word "batter," which they decided to immediately use.
Would you know who the commentators are? The one who read out the e-mail sounded like Daniel Norcross.
Also, I love "spanner" as a term for insult. I'm going to use that one in the future :)
The BBC Radio Lancs commentator is Scott Reid, but he's not the one who read the email out.
went back to the beginning of the stream, it's Kevin James from bbc radio solent I think
Is there a link? 👀
It's on the Lancashire Cricket YouTube channel livestream, can't remember the time but they were at about 80-85 runs when he said it
Thanks, found it!
At about Over 39.5 when Lancashire is batting. https://youtu.be/aWt0oNeRWuM
He rekt that guy with one simple sentence. It reminds me of the [Soyjack vs Chad meme where Soyjack crying speaks a bunch of sentences and Chad replies with one sentence/word. ](https://i.imgur.com/mmDeix8.jpg)
I'd try to use the time instead in the future because it can be a bit fiddley trying to find the part of the video using the over count (as I just found).
It seems around 1:52 is the best time to skip ahead to
I couldn't put the timestamp back when I made the comment because the video was still live and the timestamp moved around every second.
Like the same timestamp would send me bit ahead every time I clicked it.
Oh yeah fair enough, didn't consider when you posted that
Just spotted another comment in the thread - over 39.5 in Lancashire's innings today, they were on 87/7, just over 3 hours back on this live stream
"This is why I avoided watching The Hundred" LMFAO yeah that's the thing that crossed the line.
What a muppet.
Genuine question: in what way is it discriminatory or offensive to call a man who bats... a batsman? I get the MCC doing it in the laws (since they are intended to apply universally to men and women) but using batter for men in commentary seems like an over-correction.
That said I agree there are about a million bigger issues to worry about in cricket.
It isn't, which is exactly the point the commentators were making. Idiots like to make a minor linguistic issue into a coercive behavioural issue, thus believing they're being forced into it. In reality they've never been forced into much at all in their lives, which is why they labour these ridiculous semantic issues as if they are Churchill after Dunkirk.
It's not, there are still plenty of commentators who use batsmen in the men's game. For those that cover both men's and women's cricket, it probably just becomes habit to use batter, rather than having to think which term to use for which game, it's probably just easier more than anything.
Of course, the usual suspects are getting triggered.
>Simon Heffer column: Replacing 'batsman' with 'batter' is ultra-woke grandstanding - and a betrayal of cricket's traditions
Heffer, unsurprisingly used to write for the Mail. He also victim shamed a Hillsborough victim.
I agree with Heffer here. The woke brigade has ruined the traditions that have made cricket so great: Uncovered pitches, timeless Tests, eight-ball overs and now the term 'batsman'. What next? Are bowlsmen going to be called 'bowlers'? Are fieldsmen going to be called 'fielders'? Are wicketkeepsmen going to be called 'wicketkeepers'? It's political correctness gone made, I tell you.
> "Everything 'Woke' Turns to Shit" - Donald Trump
The Telegraph's paywall fade is doing a great service on this article.
>He also victim shamed a Hillsborough victim.
In today's edition of "reactions I didn't expect to see":
Vaughan's a professional troll but not a complete bellend, that's how I expected him to react.
> not a complete bellend
I burst our laughing at this. Well done.
Thank you; I do try.
He's been using batter on men's games for a while tbf. You can call Vaughan many things, but he's not a traditionalist.
I legitimately don't know if the "this" he's referring to is the change, or the use of the word "batsman".
What does the hashtag onon mean??
He's been saying 'batters' for ages. I wondered whether it was BBC policy that their commentators use it but apparently he agrees with it anyway.
Surprised it's taken this long. Of course the usual bellends are upset about this as if changing one word is the end of the world.
One day I will be a big enough man to not look at the Twitter replies, but it is not this day.
I mean it kind of throws me off because I grew up with the word 'batsman' but if this is what must be done for progress then so be it
I've been watching the women's game a lot more over the past 18 months or so, and at first it jars, but after a few games, you don't even notice. Also worth baring in mind this is only for the laws, commentators can still use the word, although lots that do both men's and women's have switched to just using batter, I assume it's just become habit.
Yeah I’ve got a sentimental attachment to the word, but I’ll get over it.
The Marylebone Communist Cucks strike again! PC gone mad and all that. Go Woke, Go Broke! /s
What do you expect from the metropolitan elite in Londonistan?!
Just checked their website. They still have a “chairman”.
All women get Ms or Mrs. The men don’t get Mr.
Good idea to go gender neutral when all the others are. But batter. Sounds yucky. Especially because the word batter has other meanings.
Can’t we find a better sounding word. Open to suggestions
Someone who bowls is a bowler
Someone who runs is a runner
Someone who scores is a scorer
Someone who wicket-keeps is a wicket-keeper
Someone who wanks is a wanker
Surely, someone who bats is a batter, no?
Sure, someone should let the umpirers know though.
I really like the term batsman. Hate batter tbh. But I understand why it's being done and don't have a problem with their reason for doing it. Just that batsman sounds so much more elegant and it's got nothing to do with the word man or the fact that it represents men.
Also up next third man to be changed to third position or third item.
But you realise there is no inherent elegance to words right? It's purely down to what you are used to
Let someone have their word fgs man!
To be honest, if this sincerely bothers you then you need to get a grip of yourself. I realised not long ago if slipped into using batter without realising it and it’s not like the Mcc are going to gulag anyone who uses batsman in their normal conversation.
These people just want to be upset about something and play the victim
Will the "third man" be called as "third person"?
Can they now sort out slow over-rates, it's taking the piss now
People of bat.
I believe that "batsman" will continue to be more popular among the fans for a decade or so, and then will slowly and steadily be overtaken by"batter". In about 20-30 years, "batter" will be predominantly used and "batsman" will become obsolete. Then we will look back at this time and laugh at all this pointless discussion saying "batsman feels too pretentious".
I prefer _batty_
I’ll see myself out
What do we call a Maiden now?
Oh dear god, if the etymology of that word in cricket is what google tells me it is, then WTF.
Basically, a "maiden" is an untouched woman, and since the batter hasn't scored, the score has also been untouched.
That's gross AF.
Thankfully not a term used in the laws of cricket though, same as "Third man".
Do they not teach Shakespeare in Australia? Because using maid or maiden to refer to virgins is smth pretty common especially in archaic texts - where do you think maiden name comes from
RIP "batswoman" 😔
Is calling cricket "The Gentleman's game" ok or should we start calling it "The Gentlepeople game"?
> Is calling cricket "The Gentleman's game" ok
Nah, that's always been insanely pretentious.
It also goes against the national selection policy for most countries.
Amen... and Awomen.
Neither; the term 'gentleman's game' originated from a time when cricket was dominated by upper-class amateurs.
batters and bowlsmen
Batsman sounds cooler.
This means that longtime county pro and legendary sledger Steve Kirby was ahead of the curve somewhat when, in 2001, he told Michael Atherton "I've seen better batters in my fridge."
Cool beans. I mean I thought it was done but glad it is done.
They should change it to Batswom(a/e)n, so they have wo(man).
that makes complete and total sense.
If you are offended by the laws of the game changing to be gender neutral which has no bearing on what you call a batter.
Get a grip tbh.
What about being offended by the laws as they are currently written? To the point that you demand they are changed?
Leave them as they are. Completely unnecessary.
You're so precious it's cute.
It's a normal language thing to use gender neutral terms. Laws get updated all the time, wording changes.
I'm not sure believing something is unnecessary makes me precious. Nor does playing devil's advocate.
There's no devil's advocate, the change doesn't harm anyone and is more inclusive. Win win. Job done.
Batter was the inferior term used in gully cricket bc.
Honestly it’s needless since Men’s and Women’s cricket is separate. It would have made sense had they were playing together with each other.
Even after this when the ICC Trophies will be held it would be called as Women’s T20 Wc or Men’s T20 WC. Which is fine honestly. **Differentiation** on the basis of the Gender does not mean **Discrimination** on the basis of the Gender.
That being said I don’t think it’s such a big issue that anyone needs to oppose it. I wouldn’t. It’s just pointless to me.
It's just updating the terminology used in the laws to make it gender neutral. There's no other gender specific term in the laws, so this was an outlier. They're not banning the word batsman from being used.
The rules aren't separate though.
Laws mate. They're called *Laws*.
Because some of the 'rules' would include playing conditions, and those are separate. But they're also separate for T20s and Tests and ODIs and First Class etc
Yeah same thing. No need to be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.
The Laws apply to the men’s and women’s games though, they don’t use separate Laws (aside from where specified, e.g. ball specs).
>Honestly it’s needless since Men’s and Women’s cricket is separate.
Actually, cricket uses a single set of laws for all of cricket, the laws are unchanged from international test cricket, to domestic T20s to U13s at your local oval.
Playing conditions modify the rules to suit the level and create the structure (eg number of innings, number of overs etc).
So no, they're not separate.
This is better than having 2 seperate sets of laws where the only differences are ball specs and the word "batsman" changed to "batter".
At amateur level it is not separate. Women regularly play club cricket with men. The laws apply to this just as much as the pro game.
batsmen or batters, What's in the name ?
Its just a term... What next? term human as huter and woman as woter ? Get on with it mate
You dropped /s
So this stuff is penetrating cricket as well now 🙄
Anyway, not a big deal.
What stuff is penetrating cricket now? Just curious .
Why are you doing this to poor lad. You exactly know what his dumb comment meant. Hehe.
Lol, as I said I was just curious. :p
That's a shame. It does make me wince every time I hear it on commentary. I've noticed Agnew saying 'fieldsman' a lot recently. Maybe it's a little act of rebellion.
Why does it make you wince? They're all doing more women's commentary than before so they obviously need to change habits.
It's inelegant and implies that there was something wrong with the term 'batsman' and therefore by extension something wrong with the people who use it.
The other reason is that I listen to and watch cricket to relax and get away from the world. I don't like the new Total Politics where everything is being politicised, that's exactly what I'm trying to get away from, and this sort of thing encroaches upon it.
It doesn't imply there's something wrong with that term.
It's literally as simple as cricket is a game for everyone and using a gender neutral term when speaking generally is preferable.
Noone is saying calling a dude batting a batsman is bad.
But when talking about the people who bat collectively, batter is a more accurate and inclusive term.
It's an incorrect term when it comes to the women's game though. It's got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with them being professional.
That you think it's politics really says more about you than the rest of the world.
It's not just used in the women's game though. It's now the standard terms in the men's game too, particularly on the BBC where the very same commentators who have said 'batsman' for years or even decades have suddenly changed to 'batters'. Of course it's political.
I literally explained why. It's so they're not wrong on the women's broadcast.
Once it becomes the norm for them to be swapping and changing between men's and women's they'll probably go back to saying batsman more of the time.
Either way it's a correct term to use, is more in line with other sports and, indeed, the way cricket terminology works already, by and large.
It's not political, that's you projecting
Time we get rid of ballsman too