Lessons to be learned from the cricket culture review

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... -do-better

Anyone else bricking it that the next review will be into rugby's culture?

Puja

[FKAS]

I have a fairly dim view of cricket, probably due to the local cricket club which never did anything to enamour itself. Doesn't surprise me that they have a lot of issues in their game. I accept that might not be the norm.

That being said if I were the RFU I'd be going out my way to push a big culture shift onto the community game. Rugby has generally been accessible to all but there is without doubt a big drinking culture and a tendency for some pretty boorish banter. Those being curtailed before the inevitable review or at least be shown to be a work in progress would certainly help. The fall out from the Luther Burrell findings should certainly be spurring them into gear.

[Oakboy]

I suppose it depends on the quality of the review, should it happen. Constructive criticism from an open-minded panel dominated by realism and common sense would not worry me at all. Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, being nice to people is such a problem these days.
No really, being nice really is an issue,not imagined and mus-interpreted at every turn) and should be resisted at every opportunity.

The best way to be welcoming, and increase support of the game, is to make sure no-one's being nice to other people.

[TheNomad]

Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

This is my concern, and I do think there's likely to be an element of that in the cricket review.

I'm a fairly centre left individual in the main, but I worry that the cricket report is somewhat self flagellating. It might not be, but I'm sure there are many people within cricket (much like the police force) that are in no way racist, and have done much towards the inclusion of minorities.

However, in the interest of appealing to vocal minorities, they have made out as if there's a larger problem than there is.

I'm not sure if I want to be right, or wrong about that, mind you

[Mellsblue]

The rugby locker room, rugby pitch and the clubhouse bar could be some of the cruelest places on earth but I miss it and I wouldn’t change it for a minute.

[Mr Mwenda]

The rugby locker room, rugby pitch and the clubhouse bar could be some of the cruelest places on earth but I miss it and I wouldn’t change it for a minute.

I miss them all too, but reckon they would have been just as good without the periodic homophobic banter.

FWW most of the rugby cultures I have been a part of have been harmless in my view. But I can see why they can make it tough for newcomers. Joining a new team or trying a new sport are intimidating enough for many without trying to judge the extent people mean the things they say.

[Oakboy]

The rugby locker room, rugby pitch and the clubhouse bar could be some of the cruelest places on earth but I miss it and I wouldn’t change it for a minute.

The snag, always, is in the definition of words like 'cruel'. At university (many decades ago), I was thrown into digs with a guy who played for the rugby 1st XV. I was in the football 1st XI. Camaraderie and post-match socialising were amazingly different between the two sports with rugby light years ahead. Often, we were both at home at the same time. I joined the rugby crowd in the bar and became the inevitable target of drinking games, usually ending up pissed and trouserless. Arguably, that was cruelty by modern day standards but I would not have missed it for the world.

The most important factor in all this is context. If it is easy to be loved, maybe the value is less than if you have to work at acceptance. My generation will always decry the 'something for nothing' brigade who want things on a plate with life overloaded by rules. Having said that, inclusivity was different. Colour and ethnicity mattered not one jot - Fijians were always the drinking champions, for example. Conversely, females and other genders were simply not around in that environment at that time.

[Mellsblue]

The rugby locker room, rugby pitch and the clubhouse bar could be some of the cruelest places on earth but I miss it and I wouldn’t change it for a minute.

The snag, always, is in the definition of words like 'cruel'. At university (many decades ago), I was thrown into digs with a guy who played for the rugby 1st XV. I was in the football 1st XI. Camaraderie and post-match socialising were amazingly different between the two sports with rugby light years ahead. Often, we were both at home at the same time. I joined the rugby crowd in the bar and became the inevitable target of drinking games, usually ending up pissed and trouserless. Arguably, that was cruelty by modern day standards but I would not have missed it for the world.

The most important factor in all this is context. If it is easy to be loved, maybe the value is less than if you have to work at acceptance. My generation will always decry the 'something for nothing' brigade who want things on a plate with life overloaded by rules. Having said that, inclusivity was different. Colour and ethnicity mattered not one jot - Fijians were always the drinking champions, for example. Conversely, females and other genders were simply not around in that environment at that time.

In my experience, rugby clubs tend to be the most welcoming of places… as long as you’re willing to have the piss taken out of you and can laugh at yourself. Clubs will evolve with the generations as they always have. There’s no need to artificially sanitise them, imo.

[SixAndAHalf]

I suppose it depends on the quality of the review, should it happen. Constructive criticism from an open-minded panel dominated by realism and common sense would not worry me at all. Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

Agree with this - the key is how the panel for any review is determined and set up. Ideally you would want some people with genuine experience from a sport or rugby club that has had to make changes rather than political appointments.

As others have said, rugby clubs can be the most welcoming places however I am a white straight male so am in what I expect is the majority demographic. I have played rugby for over 20 years from school to uni to an amateur club as well as representative rugby and I have seen homophobic and racist language used albeit I would say this has significantly reduced in the last 5 years and would nowadays be called out. Ensuring all clubs had a formal policy for complaints and a process for dealing with any issue (particularly if from coaches / people in positions of power) would be an example of a positive change that could be made albeit it is complex - the individuals are likely to be influenced by wider societal issues rather than something the rugby club is doing.

Rugby as a sport is already going through an identity crisis so any such report should recognise the good that rugby undoubtedly does as well as its flaws. It is also a fallacy that you can make the game / specific clubs welcoming to all - for example if there was a player who for religious or other reasons could not be near alcohol it would be unfair to ask everyone else in the club to not drink alcohol to accommodate them. Training for clubs on how to deal with such situations might be helpful however.

[TheNomad]

I suppose it depends on the quality of the review, should it happen. Constructive criticism from an open-minded panel dominated by realism and common sense would not worry me at all. Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

Agree with this - the key is how the panel for any review is determined and set up. Ideally you would want some people with genuine experience from a sport or rugby club that has had to make changes rather than political appointments.

As others have said, rugby clubs can be the most welcoming places however I am a white straight male so am in what I expect is the majority demographic. I have played rugby for over 20 years from school to uni to an amateur club as well as representative rugby and I have seen homophobic and racist language used albeit I would say this has significantly reduced in the last 5 years and would nowadays be called out. Ensuring all clubs had a formal policy for complaints and a process for dealing with any issue (particularly if from coaches / people in positions of power) would be an example of a positive change that could be made albeit it is complex - the individuals are likely to be influenced by wider societal issues rather than something the rugby club is doing.

Rugby as a sport is already going through an identity crisis so any such report should recognise the good that rugby undoubtedly does as well as its flaws. It is also a fallacy that you can make the game / specific clubs welcoming to all - for example if there was a player who for religious or other reasons could not be near alcohol it would be unfair to ask everyone else in the club to not drink alcohol to accommodate them. Training for clubs on how to deal with such situations might be helpful however.

Good post

[FKAS]

I suppose it depends on the quality of the review, should it happen. Constructive criticism from an open-minded panel dominated by realism and common sense would not worry me at all. Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

Agree with this - the key is how the panel for any review is determined and set up. Ideally you would want some people with genuine experience from a sport or rugby club that has had to make changes rather than political appointments.

As others have said, rugby clubs can be the most welcoming places however I am a white straight male so am in what I expect is the majority demographic. I have played rugby for over 20 years from school to uni to an amateur club as well as representative rugby and I have seen homophobic and racist language used albeit I would say this has significantly reduced in the last 5 years and would nowadays be called out. Ensuring all clubs had a formal policy for complaints and a process for dealing with any issue (particularly if from coaches / people in positions of power) would be an example of a positive change that could be made albeit it is complex - the individuals are likely to be influenced by wider societal issues rather than something the rugby club is doing.

Rugby as a sport is already going through an identity crisis so any such report should recognise the good that rugby undoubtedly does as well as its flaws. It is also a fallacy that you can make the game / specific clubs welcoming to all - for example if there was a player who for religious or other reasons could not be near alcohol it would be unfair to ask everyone else in the club to not drink alcohol to accommodate them. Training for clubs on how to deal with such situations might be helpful however.

I played in the Leicester leagues and it was entertaining how some of the clubs ensured their religious abstainers were kept in the post game fun. Selecting a second to do their man of the match pint race instead of them or having a punishment pint of ginger beer instead of larger.

[Stom]

I suppose it depends on the quality of the review, should it happen. Constructive criticism from an open-minded panel dominated by realism and common sense would not worry me at all. Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

Agree with this - the key is how the panel for any review is determined and set up. Ideally you would want some people with genuine experience from a sport or rugby club that has had to make changes rather than political appointments.

As others have said, rugby clubs can be the most welcoming places however I am a white straight male so am in what I expect is the majority demographic. I have played rugby for over 20 years from school to uni to an amateur club as well as representative rugby and I have seen homophobic and racist language used albeit I would say this has significantly reduced in the last 5 years and would nowadays be called out. Ensuring all clubs had a formal policy for complaints and a process for dealing with any issue (particularly if from coaches / people in positions of power) would be an example of a positive change that could be made albeit it is complex - the individuals are likely to be influenced by wider societal issues rather than something the rugby club is doing.

Rugby as a sport is already going through an identity crisis so any such report should recognise the good that rugby undoubtedly does as well as its flaws. It is also a fallacy that you can make the game / specific clubs welcoming to all - for example if there was a player who for religious or other reasons could not be near alcohol it would be unfair to ask everyone else in the club to not drink alcohol to accommodate them. Training for clubs on how to deal with such situations might be helpful however.

This is the crux of it.

The "crusade" against racism in cricket is not some "sacrifice on the altar of wokery", it's a big problem. A player was abused, tried to complain about it, and nothing was done. That's a monumental failure. We're not talking about a player complaining, the perpetrators being told what they did was wrong, apologising and changing behaviour. We're talking the perpetrators not apologizing and not changing behaviour.

If there is a way for someone to complain, isolated incidents of racism/sexism/transphobia/homphobia/etc., can remain just that. If there is no way for them to complain, that is institutional.

It's not "wokery", it's being a good human being who can accept that they hurt someone, even if they didn't mean to (or if they did).

[Puja]

I suppose it depends on the quality of the review, should it happen. Constructive criticism from an open-minded panel dominated by realism and common sense would not worry me at all. Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

Agree with this - the key is how the panel for any review is determined and set up. Ideally you would want some people with genuine experience from a sport or rugby club that has had to make changes rather than political appointments.

As others have said, rugby clubs can be the most welcoming places however I am a white straight male so am in what I expect is the majority demographic. I have played rugby for over 20 years from school to uni to an amateur club as well as representative rugby and I have seen homophobic and racist language used albeit I would say this has significantly reduced in the last 5 years and would nowadays be called out. Ensuring all clubs had a formal policy for complaints and a process for dealing with any issue (particularly if from coaches / people in positions of power) would be an example of a positive change that could be made albeit it is complex - the individuals are likely to be influenced by wider societal issues rather than something the rugby club is doing.

Rugby as a sport is already going through an identity crisis so any such report should recognise the good that rugby undoubtedly does as well as its flaws. It is also a fallacy that you can make the game / specific clubs welcoming to all - for example if there was a player who for religious or other reasons could not be near alcohol it would be unfair to ask everyone else in the club to not drink alcohol to accommodate them. Training for clubs on how to deal with such situations might be helpful however.

This is the crux of it.

The "crusade" against racism in cricket is not some "sacrifice on the altar of wokery", it's a big problem. A player was abused, tried to complain about it, and nothing was done. That's a monumental failure. We're not talking about a player complaining, the perpetrators being told what they did was wrong, apologising and changing behaviour. We're talking the perpetrators not apologizing and not changing behaviour.

If there is a way for someone to complain, isolated incidents of racism/sexism/transphobia/homphobia/etc., can remain just that. If there is no way for them to complain, that is institutional.

It's not "wokery", it's being a good human being who can accept that they hurt someone, even if they didn't mean to (or if they did).

Nail->Head

Sacrifice on the altar of wokery, on the other hand, might be a problem.

This is my concern, and I do think there's likely to be an element of that in the cricket review.

I'm a fairly centre left individual in the main, but I worry that the cricket report is somewhat self flagellating. It might not be, but I'm sure there are many people within cricket (much like the police force) that are in no way racist, and have done much towards the inclusion of minorities.

However, in the interest of appealing to vocal minorities, they have made out as if there's a larger problem than there is.

I'm not sure if I want to be right, or wrong about that, mind you

I will also note that it's always spectacularly easy for white/straight/cis/middle-class/abled/men (pick any combination of powerful groups, special prize if you get a whole bingo line) to declare that "they have made out as if there's a larger problem than there is", because a) they don't experience any of it themselves so they're plain not present for all of it, b) anything which they do see doesn't emotionally affect them, so a comment which is seared indelibly into a minority player's memory, isn't even remembered by them cause it wasn't anything major, and c) they emotionally don't want the sport that they love to have major problems and so when a light is shone on one, their brain reacts emotionally and defensively and looks for reasons why it isn't actually so - it's a few bad apples, it's isolated incidents, it's wokists trying to stir up drama, it's a witchhunt, it's just harmless banter, etc.

Also worth remembering that, for every Luther Burrell, there are hundreds who have taken a look at the likely backlash and stress involved and gone, "Nah, you know what, I can't be bothered." People don't complain for funsies or because they want to "push an agenda" - it is a shitty, horrible thing to have to do and it usually achieves the square root of fuck-all. Look at how much fun Azeem Rafiq has had as a result of going public - no-one's doing this unless they feel they absolutely must. It's unlikely that it's made out as a larger problem than there is, more likely that there's a larger problem than it's made out there is.

It is also a fallacy that you can make the game / specific clubs welcoming to all - for example if there was a player who for religious or other reasons could not be near alcohol it would be unfair to ask everyone else in the club to not drink alcohol to accommodate them. Training for clubs on how to deal with such situations might be helpful however.

I played in the Leicester leagues and it was entertaining how some of the clubs ensured their religious abstainers were kept in the post game fun. Selecting a second to do their man of the match pint race instead of them or having a punishment pint of ginger beer instead of larger.

I love those examples. That's a really good way of letting everyone be involved and feel welcomed rather than being exclusionist.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

You should try having a middle class southern accent when playing in ex-mining towns in north Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and south Yorkshire. It was relentless on and off the pitch and being stuck at the bottom of a ruck was brutal.
#justice4thewellspoken (insert tongue in cheek emoji here).

[Puja]

You should try having a middle class southern accent when playing in ex-mining towns in north Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and south Yorkshire. It was relentless on and off the pitch and being stuck at the bottom of a ruck was brutal.
#justice4thewellspoken (insert tongue in cheek emoji here).

Lots of punching down, was there?

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I played in the Leicester leagues and it was entertaining how some of the clubs ensured their religious abstainers were kept in the post game fun. Selecting a second to do their man of the match pint race instead of them or having a punishment pint of ginger beer instead of larger.

I love those examples. That's a really good way of letting everyone be involved and feel welcomed rather than being exclusionist.

Puja

And all without a wide and deep review into the culture of the game. The RFU, for their litany of faults, have a lot of robust policies and procedures in place for this sort of stuff.
As I said previously, I think this sort of stuff will be self-policing in places such as rugby clubs these days.

[Mellsblue]

You should try having a middle class southern accent when playing in ex-mining towns in north Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and south Yorkshire. It was relentless on and off the pitch and being stuck at the bottom of a ruck was brutal.
#justice4thewellspoken (insert tongue in cheek emoji here).

Lots of punching down, was there?

Puja

I left that for Monday - Friday, and my staff, obvs

[Oakboy]

I played in the Leicester leagues and it was entertaining how some of the clubs ensured their religious abstainers were kept in the post game fun. Selecting a second to do their man of the match pint race instead of them or having a punishment pint of ginger beer instead of larger.

I love those examples. That's a really good way of letting everyone be involved and feel welcomed rather than being exclusionist.

Puja

And all without a wide and deep review into the culture of the game. The RFU, for their litany of faults, have a lot of robust policies and procedures in place for this sort of stuff.
As I said previously, I think this sort of stuff will be self-policing in places such as rugby clubs these days.

I think self-policing has usually ruled in a common-sense way in the sports club scene. Over-the-top witch hunts on the back of single complaints can be counter-productive for all concerned. Equal opportunity is an absolute must but a willingness to accept crtiticism goes with it. I suppose much depends on leadership.

[Puja]

I think self-policing has usually ruled in a common-sense way in the sports club scene. Over-the-top witch hunts on the back of single complaints can be counter-productive for all concerned. Equal opportunity is an absolute must but a willingness to accept crtiticism goes with it. I suppose much depends on leadership.

I'm genuinely unsure whether you are trolling me by posting the absolute archetype of what I was talking about earlier, or whether this is a serious post.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I think self-policing has usually ruled in a common-sense way in the sports club scene. Over-the-top witch hunts on the back of single complaints can be counter-productive for all concerned. Equal opportunity is an absolute must but a willingness to accept crtiticism goes with it. I suppose much depends on leadership.

I'm genuinely unsure whether you are trolling me by posting the absolute archetype of what I was talking about earlier, or whether this is a serious post.

Puja

I was being serious but immediately offer apologies if I have offended you. I was reacting only to Mellsblue's use of 'self-policing' etc. We all post based on opinion and experience. My sports club experience in seven different locations across the southern half of the country accounts for the opinion expressed. That experience may be very different from yours, I accept.

[Stom]

I think self-policing has usually ruled in a common-sense way in the sports club scene. Over-the-top witch hunts on the back of single complaints can be counter-productive for all concerned. Equal opportunity is an absolute must but a willingness to accept crtiticism goes with it. I suppose much depends on leadership.

I'm genuinely unsure whether you are trolling me by posting the absolute archetype of what I was talking about earlier, or whether this is a serious post.

Puja

I was being serious but immediately offer apologies if I have offended you. I was reacting only to Mellsblue's use of 'self-policing' etc. We all post based on opinion and experience. My sports club experience in seven different locations across the southern half of the country accounts for the opinion expressed. That experience may be very different from yours, I accept.

If you're not a minority in any way, shape, or form, it can be really hard to notice, though. What if one of your teammates was secretly gay and all that homophobic banter hurt him really badly, he just couldn't speak up without outing himself...yet all that homophobic banter makes him feel like he woudn't be accepted.

[Puja]

I think self-policing has usually ruled in a common-sense way in the sports club scene. Over-the-top witch hunts on the back of single complaints can be counter-productive for all concerned. Equal opportunity is an absolute must but a willingness to accept crtiticism goes with it. I suppose much depends on leadership.

I'm genuinely unsure whether you are trolling me by posting the absolute archetype of what I was talking about earlier, or whether this is a serious post.

Puja

I was being serious but immediately offer apologies if I have offended you. I was reacting only to Mellsblue's use of 'self-policing' etc. We all post based on opinion and experience. My sports club experience in seven different locations across the southern half of the country accounts for the opinion expressed. That experience may be very different from yours, I accept.

No offence at all - I was just a bit tickled by having written a screed on how it's really easy to downplay and minimize things as someone that they don't affect, and then seeing the exact language I'd used as examples - witch-hunt, single incidents - used in a genuine manner.

I'm hardly speaking from a point of experience myself - I've played in five different locations across the south of the country and I've personally experienced very few problems in rugby clubs. Then again, I'm white, male, cis, middle-class, mostly abled, and I even pass as straight if I want to (bi and married to a woman), so it's no surprising I might not notice it. Hells, many times when I was younger and stupider when I was probably part of the problem without realising it.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I'm genuinely unsure whether you are trolling me by posting the absolute archetype of what I was talking about earlier, or whether this is a serious post.

Puja

I was being serious but immediately offer apologies if I have offended you. I was reacting only to Mellsblue's use of 'self-policing' etc. We all post based on opinion and experience. My sports club experience in seven different locations across the southern half of the country accounts for the opinion expressed. That experience may be very different from yours, I accept.

If you're not a minority in any way, shape, or form, it can be really hard to notice, though. What if one of your teammates was secretly gay and all that homophobic banter hurt him really badly, he just couldn't speak up without outing himself...yet all that homophobic banter makes him feel like he woudn't be accepted.

That, I fully accept.

Fortunately, I've never seen such damaging effects at first hand. I've played in teams with gay players who were accepted with all-round comfort (that sounds clumsy but we were happy with the openness and so were they). In one case, a guy apparently happily married (to a woman) with kids switched to a male partner. That shocked some and caused gossip but I saw no evidence of unkindness directly towards him.

Maybe, I've just led a sheltered life.

[Puja]

I was being serious but immediately offer apologies if I have offended you. I was reacting only to Mellsblue's use of 'self-policing' etc. We all post based on opinion and experience. My sports club experience in seven different locations across the southern half of the country accounts for the opinion expressed. That experience may be very different from yours, I accept.

If you're not a minority in any way, shape, or form, it can be really hard to notice, though. What if one of your teammates was secretly gay and all that homophobic banter hurt him really badly, he just couldn't speak up without outing himself...yet all that homophobic banter makes him feel like he woudn't be accepted.

That, I fully accept.

Fortunately, I've never seen such damaging effects at first hand. I've played in teams with gay players who were accepted with all-round comfort (that sounds clumsy but we were happy with the openness and so were they). In one case, a guy apparently happily married (to a woman) with kids switched to a male partner. That shocked some and caused gossip but I saw no evidence of unkindness directly towards him.

Maybe, I've just led a sheltered life.

I mean, that's the whole point - you wouldn't. You might not be present when the unkind things are said, you might not even notice that the thing said was unkind or write it off as banter that he laughed along with, because it isn't you that's the butt of the joke. And you can't tell whether he laughed along with a funny joke or laughed because he didn't want to be the guy who makes an issue or raises a fuss about a joke and the nightmare is to gather your courage and say, "Dude, not cool" and then nobody backs you. So you laugh and you swallow it down and when next preseason comes around, you decide you just don't fancy going back this year.

Puja