City Of Moorabbin Cricket Association 2011/12

Top Contributors
Fair play. Cheating is probably a little excessive, but it's certainly outside the spirit of the game to decide one round out from finals that you want to start playing for 10 points before a ball is bowled. You've had 9 games to set yourselves up with a finals berth. Don't start bending the rules cos you weren't good enough to do so.

Back on to Sugar's point about Shield cricket. Let's not forget that their game is derived to play 4 innings for 6 points. Ours is a 2 innings game with a bonus 4 points awarded to any team that plays well enough to earn them..... not to contrive a result to gain them.
 
I agree UM, you can't compare CMCA (2 afternoons cricket designed for 2 innings results) cricket with Sheffield Shield (4 full days cricket designed for 4 innings results). If you are good enough in the CMCA to take 20 wickets and make enough runs to beat your opposition's total score in 2 afternoons, then you deserve the 10 points, but no team assumes they are playing for 10 points at the beginning of a game.

Contriving outright results before a ball is bowled to gain a finals spot is definitely foul play in my books.

Maybe 10 points should only be awarded to the winning team if the losing team has been bowled out twice (ie not declared their first innings early).
 
The Old Bill said:
Hey guys - I suggest that you check the CMCA rule book - rule 4.8.5 outlaws colluding to contrive a result.
Click to expand...

Interesting,this talks about the "outcome of a match" this laws to outlaws the other scenario discuss were a team allows another team to win (possible in return for beer..). What UM is talking about is not colluding to contrive the outcome of a match (IMO) its colluding to change the match conditions. Details but its different.

This is what the law says....
If the Executive finds that the clubs, captains or players have colluded
to contrive the outcome of a match the Executive may in its absolute
discretion do one or more of the following:
 
Army,

I think UM is talking about two teams colluding to contrive the points obtained from the outcome of a match. Ie the winner gains 10 points rather than 6 and potentially leap frogs it's rivals by 4 points into a finals position.

The bottom line is, it's placing other teams at a 4 point disadvantage, across the board for that round of cricket, in that grade.

Surely that can only be seen as unfair and colluding a result for a team's advantage.
 
P Parker said:
Army,

I think UM is talking about two teams colluding to contrive the points obtained from the outcome of a match. Ie the winner gains 10 points rather than 6 and potentially leap frogs it's rivals by 4 points into a finals position.

The bottom line is, it's placing other teams at a 4 point disadvantage, across the board for that round of cricket, in that grade.

Surely that can only be seen as unfair and colluding a result for a team's advantage.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point, PP.
 
There has been rule changes, fixture amendments (round 11 1 dayer) etc. Any sniff of impropriety and they will be swooped down upon so fast it will make their head spin.
 
Jimmy Olson said:
Unc, every year this one comes up, the Exec will be watching for anything dodgy and will stomp on it is all I was intimating, sorry, was obviously being a bit obtuse.

Podcast of last Sundays CMCA show on Southern FM now available here:-
[URL='http://www.southernfm.com.au/program/cmca-panel-show-12th-february-round-10-day-1/[/quote']http://www.southernfm.com.au/program/cmca-panel-show-12th-february-round-10-day-1/[/URL]
Click to expand...

Obtuse Homer J. .. you have abviously watched Shawshank recently then??
 
Jimmy Olson said:
Unc, every year this one comes up, the Exec will be watching for anything dodgy and will stomp on it is all I was intimating, sorry, was obviously being a bit obtuse.

Podcast of last Sundays CMCA show on Southern FM now available here:-
[URL='http://www.southernfm.com.au/program/cmca-panel-show-12th-february-round-10-day-1/[/quote']http://www.southernfm.com.au/program/cmca-panel-show-12th-february-round-10-day-1/[/URL]
Click to expand...

I see. I thought you were referring to changes made as recent as this week.

Army - I don't think anyone is suggesting you condone those actions. However, I don't believe it's drawing a long bow to deem that the outcome of a match is contrived if 2 teams were to agree to play a 10 point game. The outcome is a contrived result the moment you agree to such match conditions as playing for 10 points. I like the idea of a team only being rewarded with 10 points if they take all 20 wickets.
 
Uncle Mick said:
I see. I thought you were referring to changes made as recent as this week.

Army - I don't think anyone is suggesting you condone those actions. However, I don't believe it's drawing a long bow to deem that the outcome of a match is contrived if 2 teams were to agree to play a 10 point game. The outcome is a contrived result the moment you agree to such match conditions as playing for 10 points. I like the idea of a team only being rewarded with 10 points if they take all 20 wickets.
Click to expand...
 
And what happens if someone retires hurt. I would think in the top division or two, that it would be rare for an outright to occur on carpet. On turf there is abit more leeway as there could be a sticky wicket.
 
Uncle Mick said:
I see. I thought you were referring to changes made as recent as this week.

Army - I don't think anyone is suggesting you condone those actions. However, I don't believe it's drawing a long bow to deem that the outcome of a match is contrived if 2 teams were to agree to play a 10 point game. The outcome is a contrived result the moment you agree to such match conditions as playing for 10 points. I like the idea of a team only being rewarded with 10 points if they take all 20 wickets.
Click to expand...

UM, I didn't think anyone was i just wanted to be clear. I think you have a good point and i guess we are really dealing with the detail here but its about whether you define "outcome" as "win, lose or draw" or "number of points" and i guess upon reflection your argument has some merit. Either way i think Jimmy's right, if the powers that be think there is something fishy going on they will throw the book at them and if that's there objective then these rules are really superficial anyway!!

Further to the 20 wicket discussion my personal thoughts are, you get so few in the top grades that why bother having outright results at all. If someone is lucky enough to get one (and i think usually there is an element of luck, like a an already average team being stripped of players due to a wedding etc) then it just distorts the results of the rest of the grade for the whole season. In the lower grades they are less likely to occur now with G Grade and below only playing 55 over days anyway. Just call it off and have a beer i reckon! On that note, i might just knock the top off one now!! ;)
 
Army said:
UM, I didn't think anyone was i just wanted to be clear. I think you have a good point and i guess we are really dealing with the detail here but its about whether you define "outcome" as "win, lose or draw" or "number of points" and i guess upon reflection your argument has some merit. Either way i think Jimmy's right, if the powers that be think there is something fishy going on they will throw the book at them and if that's there objective then these rules are really superficial anyway!!

Further to the 20 wicket discussion my personal thoughts are, you get so few in the top grades that why bother having outright results at all. If someone is lucky enough to get one (and i think usually there is an element of luck, like a an already average team being stripped of players due to a wedding etc) then it just distorts the results of the rest of the grade for the whole season. In the lower grades they are less likely to occur now with G Grade and below only playing 55 over days anyway. Just call it off and have a beer i reckon! On that note, i might just knock the top off one now!! ;)
Click to expand...

My suggestion to earn 10 points for an outright win only if the opposition is bowled out twice was simply given to counter any teams with ideas to contrive an outright result based on agreed times to declare their innings early.

Having said that, I think Army's idea of removing outright (10 point) wins altogether has more merit. As Army points out, the few outright wins that teams obtain throughout the grades over the course of a season are usually due to good timing and luck - ie encountering a side that is down on numbers for that particular week, and this is usually in the mid to lower grades. This distorts the ladder as some teams have gained an extra 4 points by taking advantage of a slice of good luck and timing.

Maybe if 10 point wins were removed the ladder would reflect a more accurate picture of the strength of sides in that grade.

Going back to the Sheffield Shield comparisons, 10 point/2 innings wins are probably more applicable to matches designed for 2 innings each over 4 days rather than opportunistic wins over 2 days.
 
Hahaha... not a snitch, but throwing a club up. You'd want to have some solid evidence if you're going sling mud at them. Care to elaborate on any details?
 
Agree flav but we have seen alot of post from people on here with made up rumors or innuendos implicating clubs or players.........not going to name names but one culprit has a link to time in his name.
To throw out unproven speculation can only reflect that individuals ambition to bring a club down whether on the back of hatred for the named person/club, jealousy or maybe they just want some lime light knowing posting something that people will grab hold onto n scratch beneath the surface.
For rockets to throw a clubs name out there on some gossip is completely unfair, let the powers to be investigate n not be governed by rumors or speculation on here, if indeed after the fact then open slather I say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top