Fully agree. Surely the umps knew the reason for Lawford's unavailability. Well, the precedent has now been set and particularly so if one of the umps was the director. Clubs would be well advised to remember this decision.
I am equally displeased with the fact clubs were directed on Wednesday afternoon to lay their full-size cover. I suggest clubs ask the VTCA executive if, in the event of gale-force winds (as was the case at the time of the VTCA's direction), a club's decision not to comply due to imposing those tasked with carrying out the direction at unacceptable risk of injury, is an acceptable reason for non-compliance. I know a number of clubs did not comply for that reason and others could not in any event have complied as they could not muster the required numbers needed at the time of the request. Clubs would be well-advised to seek clarification from the VTCA on its attitude to such matters. I hope they are sympathetically inclined. but clubs will not know unless they ask (and you can longer do so at delegates'meetings as they have been scrapped).
I am aware a very influential municipal councillor in my area who has a long association with sports issues is of the view the VTCA & the VSDCA should observe the same risk management standards as would Council, and this would have meant it would not have approved of the covers being laid on Wednesday in his municipality. The cricket community should not take for granted we are using council-owned facilities as they have the power to exercise greater control, should they so decide, in respect to matters such as the conduct of appropriate risk-management procedures on its facilities.