No, this headline is not a joke. Port Adelaide Enfield Council is considering a ban on the use of cricket balls on public parks and in public cricket nets for all those not playing an official game.
The move is based on a fear that a passerby will be injured or killed by a cricket ball, and the increase in the numbers of casual cricketers using the nets.
Fortunately, not everyone working alongside councillor Mark Brasham, the man who proposed the ban, agree that you should have a booking if you want to use a hard cricket ball, with suggestions being drawn up about implementing rubber goalposts, as well as targeting other areas like banning awful haircuts and sporting attire.
They seem like more sensible suggetions to us.
However, fellow councillor Carol Martin backed the push, saying hard cricket balls often hit people innocently going about their business in the public parks.
“Someone will die. There will be a serious accident or a conflict between people,” she said.
Not all agree.
“We’re just over-protective,” popular Adelaide radio personality KG Cunningham said.
“What’s wrong with young people out there using a hard ball? Just put up signs saying ‘hard ball in use, beware’.
“Surely people can see for themselves there’s kids are playing there. Just go down to the other end of the ground.
“If they’re that worried, just stay away from the nets. How hard is it?”
The Roar hasn’t heard anything about what will be proposed at the next Council meeting, however we wouldn’t be surprised if a temporary freeze on all fun is brought up next.
Because when the bloke proposing said change calls it ‘Nanny State’, then you know there are problems.
Irie4
Guest
A mate of mine missed being killed by less than an inch - two weeks off work, three fractures, and he has titanium plates in his face now from a training incident about two months ago. He failed to "catch" the ricochet of the steel pole at the end of the nets. As the guy who hit it imagine how I felt as he slumped to the ground... So, while I don't agree with the councillor at all, don't be thinking serious injury or worse can't or won't happen.
JGK
Roar Guru
Which ground was that?
Johnno
Guest
ban tennis courts to next to big roads then. But then again nets, should have some safety measures. Maybe a top net on the existing nets. So if you play a big hook or pull shot the top net can trap the ball, or also some warning signs to passer buys.
Craig Swanson
Guest
Seems we have a nanny council in Adelaide. Kids play the Saturday game using the red ball. So they are now being asked to practice for the match using a rubber or tennis ball? In the days when I coached juniors I would have been up in arms over this decision. I perhaps concur about the use of the hard red ball in the open areas of the park used by people, but certainly not in the netted areas.
Jack
Guest
There is not even a remote chance there have been any substantial issues with this. No one will even be killed or even injured near amateur sporting contests. There will be no stats at all to back this assertion the locals are in mortal danger.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
For quite some time, one of the grounds in the Shires comp in Sydney had a similar issue. They erected a large fence and if the ball was hit over that particular fence (not the whole fence, just a 20m stretch) it was a dead ball! That's right, the council changed the laws of cricket for a resident.
JGK
Roar Guru
This reminds me of one of the first cases I ever had to study in Law School - Miller v Jackson. Here is the Wiki page - I'd recommend reading the quote from Lord Denning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
Chui
Guest
On his LinkdIn page, it says he is interested in civil rights and community participation. I think he'd better add cotton wool wrapping people and bubble wrap for all inanimate objects.
Evan askew
Guest
Completely and utterly outrageous. Nanny state is out if control. I can't deal with this innate conservatism and paternalistic outlook that decries that fact that somewhere, somehow someone might get hurt.
Mango Jack
Guest
Sounds like councillor Mark Brasham needs to grow a couple, not ban them. What is this based on? How many people have been hit or narrowly missed being hit, and what s the severity of their injuries? Unless there are some hard stats to justify this, it's just ridiculous over-regulation