General Chat 2011/12

Top Contributors
Its because clubs that have big money will dominate and the only way to keep up is to top up with cheap imports who might go okay if your lucky. Its the same in other comps as well.
 
southern sledge said:
Its because clubs that have big money will dominate and the only way to keep up is to top up with cheap imports who might go okay if your lucky. Its the same in other comps as well.
Click to expand...

That's the current reality as per points system, at the expense of young players 16-20 years old who a) don't get a run in their local clubs firsts, and b) arguably don't get the coaching attention on their game that a captain and/or coach who was expecting/requiring him to play firsts, would otherwise provide. The points system was an alternative to the prior 2 paid player system - supposedly to provide parity between big money clubs and the remainder of the competition. That was deemed to have been too hard to regulate. The point system could arguably cap the number of OS players per club or raise their point rating/lower the club cap of 44 points - as it stands it's fueling expenses that are being spent away from club and junior development. That's my view and I know others at different clubs will have different views, but is fairly grim when you turn up to play suburban club X and half the team is from the English midlands.
 
I have also noticed the increase in overseas players over the last few years to the comp. I think it's a clear indication that clubs are probably struggling to fill X1's and as has previously been spoken about on here younger players not showing as much intesrest in the game. I think most of the overseas will be spread over the top 2 teams in the club and can be positives for clubs, creates a bit of fresh spirit in a club and rather than view it as a step back lets see what the season uncovers.
 
i think it has to do with the fact the mid tier clubs are trying to keep up with the higher tier clubs, and think by importing players in this will help them achieve the most success.
personally i think a couple of imports isn't a bad thing for you club as long as you dont lose sight of the long term game and that is sustainment of a club enviroment, that is something you wont get with "ring in's" you need clubmen, you need junior development, without both of these things you wont be vying for a premiership because you wont be playing at all...
 
I think you'll find all of Bentleighs OS recruits wont play in the 1sts. 2 maybe 3 of them will be ones players and they re prob bringing acouple of their mates that will run around in the 2-3's.
I know that happens at SCCC.
 
Can someone please explain how they came up with this?? Surely it has to be a "wide" and not a "No Ball"?? So no legside stumpings available after the 1st leg side ball of the over, seems crazy to me!!

M3.64 After the second ball passing outside leg stump in any over, the umpire shall call “No Ball” for any subsequent deliveries passing outside leg stump in that over.
 
BigMerv said:
Can someone please explain how they came up with this?? Surely it has to be a "wide" and not a "No Ball"?? So no legside stumpings available after the 1st leg side ball of the over, seems crazy to me!!

M3.64 After the second ball passing outside leg stump in any over, the umpire shall call “No Ball” for any subsequent deliveries passing outside leg stump in that over.
Click to expand...

Surely has to be a mistake if its real they've just changed one of the rules of cricket... I dont think too many bowlers mean to bowl down leg on purpose so being a NO BALL is a very harsh rule.
 
redefine said:
Surely has to be a mistake if its real they've just changed one of the rules of cricket... I dont think too many bowlers mean to bowl down leg on purpose so being a NO BALL is a very harsh rule.
Click to expand...
Nope no mistake. It was voted on at the delegates meeting by people who know nothing of cricket laws and are just there so their club doesn't get a fine. Our president stood up against (as did a few other delegates) but were shouted down by some of the VT exec. Apparently the VT exec are bigger than those who write the laws of cricket. No wonder MCA and Subbies are doing so well.
 
Southern, it doesnt matter who was at the meeting from what clubs, you can't change the rules of cricket.
If there is a leg-side stumping given not-out because its called a No-Ball, there will be some pretty unpleasant scenes I would think. I hope some common sense (as per the rules of cricket) applies and they change it to a wide.
 
my next question would be are these rules only taking effect on scheduled 1 day games or if the first week is called off in a 2 day game then 1 day rules apply the week after...
 
Yes. In bold type at the top of the PDF containing these rules it says "This includes a scheduled One Day Game, and a Two Day Game that has reverted to a One Day Game."
 
I must be going blind. I am sure I read that the innings of the team batting second is to be closed immediately, if it overtakes the score of the team batting first. But I can't find that rule anywhere in the PDF I downloaded. Can anybody tell me the rule number?
 
TheScorer said:
Maybe the VTCA will elect to call such a stumping a run-out? That way it's still out, at least...
Click to expand...
It's not, becasue they arent attempting a run

I hope they are tough on off side wides as well. I reckon we will have a lot of 7-2 fields and bowling a metre outside off stump. Could be even more negative than before
 
rat'n'bat said:
It's not, becasue they arent attempting a run

I hope they are tough on off side wides as well. I reckon we will have a lot of 7-2 fields and bowling a metre outside off stump. Could be even more negative than before
Click to expand...
Good point about the run-out. Yes, it's odd that there is no mention of anything different for off side bowling. Very half-ar**ed implementation of what are pretty standard one-day rules.
 
TheScorer said:
I must be going blind. I am sure I read that the innings of the team batting second is to be closed immediately, if it overtakes the score of the team batting first. But I can't find that rule anywhere in the PDF I downloaded. Can anybody tell me the rule number?
Click to expand...
I was told last night at training by our prez that that rule didnt go through u can still bat on once uve past the score... as we are continuing to use the bonus points system.. Pretty much the only real change is bowling restrictions which is long overdue and 2nd ball down leg no ball/wide (just need to make that a wide) wont have a huge effect anyway as how many stumpings occur down legside on the 2nd legside ball of the over?? but still agree it needs fixing..
 
DStrek15 said:
I was told last night at training by our prez that that rule didnt go through u can still bat on once uve past the score... as we are continuing to use the bonus points system.. Pretty much the only real change is bowling restrictions which is long overdue and 2nd ball down leg no ball/wide (just need to make that a wide) wont have a huge effect anyway as how many stumpings occur down legside on the 2nd legside ball of the over?? but still agree it needs fixing..
Click to expand...

Limited to 40 overs - so you roll them in 35, you only get 40, rather than 45
And no second innings
 
Interesting. I'm sure that the proposals said that the rules would be voted for in their entirety, so I'm surprised to see any changes. Agree that while we have bonus points then completing the 40 overs makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top