Mumbai Cricket Association postpones third edition of Mumbai T20 League
A few days back, the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) received permission from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for hosting the third edition of the Mumbai T20 League. BCCI permitted the MCA to conduct the event after the conclusion 14th edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL).
However, it is now learned that MCA has decided to postpone the Mumbai T20 League in the wake of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. MCA issued an official statement on April 29, Thursday to make people aware of their decision of keeping the league on hold.
Speaking about the whole matter, the league’s chairman Milind Narvekar reckoned that the tournament is postponed on humanitarian grounds as they can’t conduct cricket matches when there is a scarcity of medical supplies and people are losing their lives.
“When so many people in the country have been affected due to the pandemic, and there’s a scarcity of oxygen and vaccines, it is not prudent to organize a cricket tournament in such times.
So on humanitarian grounds, we have decided to defer the tournament till the situation comes back to normal. We don’t want our cricketers to play in these conditions. Today life is more precious than anything else. We will definitely organize the T20 Mumbai League as soon as conditions improve,” Narvekar told The Indian Express.
MCA’s governing council member explains the reason behind rescheduling
After the statement by Milind Narvekar, MCA’s governing council member Suraj Samat also detailed his opinion on postponing the T20 league. Suraj revealed that apart from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the authorities were facing other challenges too while planning to conduct the tournament.
The council member asserted that monsoon starts in the month of June and conducted matches during that period isn’t ideal as the games are more likely to be disturbed by rain. “Apart from the situation, the only time we could start our league was in June, which is when the monsoon starts. We don’t know what it will be like ahead and had to keep all stakeholders in mind. Hence we felt that it’s better not to take the risk,” he said.