Senior Division 2012-13

Top Contributors
Too Old Body Broke said:
If they did go down, I would like to know when? Nah, in fact I couldnt really care if they did or didnt. I am sure most who play in this comp know which sides will do the right thing, and those who will play "home ground advantage". I may be hearing shit, as I am getting on, but that then means a Sth Caulfield player who drives past the ground every day is in need of an eye specialist?
Click to expand...
I think it fair to assert that the people best-placed to independently assess the performance of the strip would be the umpires who stood in the game. At the tea break on the second day, as they were coming back onto the ground, I asked the umpires if the track was, "doing much". The reply from both of them was that the ball had jagged about far more the previous week, during Bentleigh's innings. From personal, empirical observation, conducted during that same tea break, by me, I was unable to detect the slightest hint of any indentation caused by the ball hitting the turf. When I said this to the umpires they agreed that this was the case.

I'd be fascinated to find out what that South Caulfield fantasist has to say about the doings in yesterday's match at the same venue, between Bentleigh and Greenvale, where Bentleigh was shot out for 87 in pursuit of 7/365. Let's face it, there is no prerequisite to know anything whatsoever about cricket to play for South Caulfield. That this is so seems not to affect those who know even less about cricket, who repeat odious, ill-considered and misinformed accusations of pitch tampering made by players attached to that club.

Edit: The five second innings Bentleigh wickets which fell on the second day came about because they were flinging the bat in an attempt to accumulate bonus points.
 
Getting fairly bored with the politics going on here, any danger of talking up the cricket? What have we gleaned out of the first two completed rounds? Greenvale look to be big improvers, Hoppers seem to have been able to cover the loss of Ahmed, Yarraville Club are back to their devastating best. South Caulfied could be the big slidders.
Any thoughts?
 
Eliminator said:
Getting fairly bored with the politics going on here, any danger of talking up the cricket? What have we gleaned out of the first two completed rounds? Greenvale look to be big improvers, Hoppers seem to have been able to cover the loss of Ahmed, Yarraville Club are back to their devastating best. South Caulfied could be the big slidders.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Apparently not.
 
Eliminator said:
Getting fairly bored with the politics going on here, any danger of talking up the cricket? What have we gleaned out of the first two completed rounds? Greenvale look to be big improvers, Hoppers seem to have been able to cover the loss of Ahmed, Yarraville Club are back to their devastating best. South Caulfied could be the big slidders.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Happy to post thoughts but I'm bracing for the usual attack(s) from a couple

A couple of surprises early with Hoppers and Greenvale. Hoppers doing well despite losing Ahmed and a couple of others. Daisy came good in the T20 too so look out when he strikes form in the 2 dayers. Looks like the South clubs are struggling, McKinnon in a transition year losing a few and with a late clearance out. South Caulfield interesting, their imports doing well but the home growns have not started well.

Couple of big games this week - Sth Caulfield / Bentleigh could decide the hopes of each club - must win game for both.
Greenvale / Hoppers - 1st vs. 2nd, should be a cracker. Hoppers import looks the goods but Greenvale have more depth to help their spread of runs. Phenomenal effort vs. Bentleigh scoring 360.
Beauy/Yarraville, GF rematch, don't count Beauy out with Hall & Cheetham, they'll be pumped.
Spotty/ St Bernards - should be a tight tussle.

Looks a really even year and I hope there's a few competitors for Yarraville's title...
 
NorthClubsDontPayPlayers said:
When was the last time 2 double hundreds were made on the same day in Senior Division?

Anyone witness either Hewett or Hawkes batting?
Click to expand...

I know one of the yarravile boys said they dropped him on 60 and that was it super fast out field 1 or 4... Great effort though and one of our poms played with hewett a few years ago said he was a ripping bloke!
 
I see that McKinnon and South Caulfied both had their innings "compulsory closed" at 72 overs. That's fair enough - it implies time was lost the first week when it rained, overs were lost, and the game reduced to 144 overs. But if both teams batted their 72 overs, how can South Caulfied then have a second innings? Perhaps my understanding of the rules is a bit shaky, but that seems very strange to me...

I guess it's possible that these "cc" in MyCricket might have been declarations, but it would be coincidental to have both innings declared after 72 overs.
 
Scorer, no declarations were made, the VTCA in all their wisdom made this decision at 6pm on Friday night... No idea what their thinking was behind this? At close of play in the first week, the umpires said that SCCC would bat for 4 overs & McKinnon would bat 76 overs... If this had occured SCCC probably would have won the game.
 
Not Out said:
Scorer, no declarations were made, the VTCA in all their wisdom made this decision at 6pm on Friday night... No idea what their thinking was behind this? At close of play in the first week, the umpires said that SCCC would bat for 4 overs & McKinnon would bat 76 overs... If this had occured SCCC probably would have won the game.
Click to expand...

It says McKinnon passed South Caulfield only 4 down though which does imply the chase was done comfortably. Regardless of this though the fact that the executive feel it's appropriate to do this is absurd.
 
I guess this must have been the rule which applied:

M2.51 If 30 minutes or less of play is lost on Day 1, the number of overs to be bowled for that day shall not be reduced. The scheduled finishing time for the match shall be extended to 6:30pm, and the innings of the team batting first, if not declared closed or dismissed, shall be compulsorily closed at the conclusion of that days play.

The storm came through the south-east after 5:30, so although there was still 8 overs to play, it may have been considered that less than 30 minutes were lost. So the innings was compulsory closed. I've often wondered how they determine the amount of time lost when rain (or for that matter, heat) causes play to be abandoned for the day after 5:30.

Interestingly (and changing the subject), searching through the VTCA Administrative Rules for the words "compulsory" and "compulsorily" finds no mention at all that in a two day match the innings of the team batting first will be compulsorily closed at the end of the first days play. The only references all relate to what happens when time is lost. There is a clear reference that one day matches have a compulsory closure at 40 or 36 overs, but nothing for a two day game.

There is this:

E2.13 Ordinary Conditions for the Match Result
Occur after the loss of a specified period of time and eliminate the Compulsory Closure requirement of the team batting first. Under Ordinary Conditions, the team batting second must either pass the score of the team batting first, or be dismissed for less than the score of the team batting first. If the team batting second is not dismissed, or does not pass the score of the team batting first, then the match is a draw.

Which mentions the "Compulsory Closure requirement" but nowhere can I find that requirement documented to be 80 overs in an uninterrupted day's play.
 
//
TheScorer said:
I guess this must have been the rule which applied:

M2.51 If 30 minutes or less of play is lost on Day 1, the number of overs to be bowled for that day shall not be reduced. The scheduled finishing time for the match shall be extended to 6:30pm, and the innings of the team batting first, if not declared closed or dismissed, shall be compulsorily closed at the conclusion of that days play.

The storm came through the south-east after 5:30, so although there was still 8 overs to play, it may have been considered that less than 30 minutes were lost. So the innings was compulsory closed. I've often wondered how they determine the amount of time lost when rain (or for that matter, heat) causes play to be abandoned for the day after 5:30.

Interestingly (and changing the subject), searching through the VTCA Administrative Rules for the words "compulsory" and "compulsorily" finds no mention at all that in a two day match the innings of the team batting first will be compulsorily closed at the end of the first days play. The only references all relate to what happens when time is lost. There is a clear reference that one day matches have a compulsory closure at 40 or 36 overs, but nothing for a two day game.

There is this:

E2.13 Ordinary Conditions for the Match Result
Occur after the loss of a specified period of time and eliminate the Compulsory Closure requirement of the team batting first. Under Ordinary Conditions, the team batting second must either pass the score of the team batting first, or be dismissed for less than the score of the team batting first. If the team batting second is not dismissed, or does not pass the score of the team batting first, then the match is a draw.

Which mentions the "Compulsory Closure requirement" but nowhere can I find that requirement documented to be 80 overs in an uninterrupted day's play.
Click to expand...

Consistancy is alll that is asked for. In Senior 2nds South Caulfield also batted 72 overs the 1st week b4 coming off the same as sCC vs Mc Kinnon in senior). Come the 2nd week the umpires allowed SCCC to bat 4 overs giving Mc Kinnon 76 overs to chase the runs.

Given the 2 sides McKinnon and South Caulfield are 2km's apart you d presume they came off at similar times, particulary given 72 overs were bowled in each game.

So the question has to be asked why 2 sets of rules?
 
Barge said:
//


Consistancy is alll that is asked for. In Senior 2nds South Caulfield also batted 72 overs the 1st week b4 coming off the same as sCC vs Mc Kinnon in senior). Come the 2nd week the umpires allowed SCCC to bat 4 overs giving Mc Kinnon 76 overs to chase the runs.

Given the 2 sides McKinnon and South Caulfield are 2km's apart you d presume they came off at similar times, particulary given 72 overs were bowled in each game.

So the question has to be asked why 2 sets of rules?
Click to expand...
And it happened on the McKinnon back ground as well, they batted for another 5 overs
 
TheScorer said:
I guess this must have been the rule which applied:

M2.51 If 30 minutes or less of play is lost on Day 1, the number of overs to be bowled for that day shall not be reduced. The scheduled finishing time for the match shall be extended to 6:30pm, and the innings of the team batting first, if not declared closed or dismissed, shall be compulsorily closed at the conclusion of that days play.

The storm came through the south-east after 5:30, so although there was still 8 overs to play, it may have been considered that less than 30 minutes were lost. So the innings was compulsory closed. I've often wondered how they determine the amount of time lost when rain (or for that matter, heat) causes play to be abandoned for the day after 5:30.

Interestingly (and changing the subject), searching through the VTCA Administrative Rules for the words "compulsory" and "compulsorily" finds no mention at all that in a two day match the innings of the team batting first will be compulsorily closed at the end of the first days play. The only references all relate to what happens when time is lost. There is a clear reference that one day matches have a compulsory closure at 40 or 36 overs, but nothing for a two day game.

There is this:

E2.13 Ordinary Conditions for the Match Result
Occur after the loss of a specified period of time and eliminate the Compulsory Closure requirement of the team batting first. Under Ordinary Conditions, the team batting second must either pass the score of the team batting first, or be dismissed for less than the score of the team batting first. If the team batting second is not dismissed, or does not pass the score of the team batting first, then the match is a draw.

Which mentions the "Compulsory Closure requirement" but nowhere can I find that requirement documented to be 80 overs in an uninterrupted day's play.
Click to expand...

I think this rule must have then been applied:

INNINGS OF TEAM BATTING SECOND
M2.62 Team Batting First – Compulsory Closure
If the innings of the team batting first is compulsorily closed on either or Day 1 or Day 2, the team batting second shall only be entitled to receive the same number of legitimate balls as the team batting first received.

Assuming that less than 30 minutes of play was lost. I don't understand why the difference between whether the 30 minutes or more being lost changes the rules. The complicating issue here is that the time was lost at the end of the days play, if time is lost during the day you may be able to make it up until 6:30 to cancel the affect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top