SA Footy

Have to give credit to Kensington, Sturt and Glenelg for amazing seasons across the grades.[/quote]


Not sure Sturt would think that, as they ponder playing in Div 2 next season!

Eagles2014 wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Minimum Chips wrote:Wonder how long before the raids from Div 1 clubs start happening on the Div 2 clubs? In particular Sturt - especially given their strong juniors? Interesting if the current Redbacks listed players get directed by SACA to play Div 1 next season?

Absolutely Redbacks players should be directed to move. The best players need to be playing Div 1

SACA were pretty clear at start of season they don't want players moving. Said it will not impact their selection for the Redbacks. But in reality, you need to be playing Div 1 - that's the whole point of this decision isn't it? Make them play better standard cricket every week. You don't want the batters facing bowlers from Southerns or Prospect every week!

I know if WT went down, the likes of Bailey Capel, etc were going elsewhere, they have to for the sake of their careers, only have limited years to make it so can't afford to waste any.

Will be interesting how they deal with permits for player transfers, think it will not be as straight forward as previously, but would it be restraint of trade if they get knocked back?

Interesting question Eags. it would depend on whether any direction by SACA for contracted players to play Div 1 is to big of a restraint in the circumstances for the adequate protection of SACAs interests. its up to SACA to prove that the decision is adequate. on one hand, its a decision to improve cricket in SA generally to a point where it provides better players who they can contract to meet their objectives and purposes. Alternatively, playing Div 2 does not necessarily mean that a player should be precluded from holding a contract and I wonder if you could point to the county system as your relevant precedent. Durham and Yorkshire are both in Div 2 therefore you'll be seeing Ben Stokes and Joe Root turning out in the lowest league of county cricket when available to do so. tough one to navigate but i am of the opinion that those who are contracted or within the emerging squad will continue to have access to facilities, coaches etc that will allow them to keep developing away from their club as the system currently provides for anyway. Personally I don't see the issue of a contracted player playing Div 2, the cream always rises to the top eventually.

Angry Bull, I totally agree with everything you said above. That was exactly what all the Clubs were told by the SACA board people who came around at the start of the season with their meetings. Players will not be disadvantaged with selection if playing Div 2. The big boss of SACA Charlie Hodgson is from UK and behind this proposal and was adamant they don’t want players moving Clubs. Can’t see Thomas Kelly or Matthias leaving as they are Sturt juniors from way back. Can see any players moving from interstate to try and make it here though going to a club in Div 1.

Eagles2014 wrote:Angry Bull, I totally agree with everything you said above. That was exactly what all the Clubs were told by the SACA board people who came around at the start of the season with their meetings. Players will not be disadvantaged with selection if playing Div 2. The big boss of SACA Charlie Hodgson is from UK and behind this proposal and was adamant they don’t want players moving Clubs. Can’t see Thomas Kelly or Matthias leaving as they are Sturt juniors from way back. Can see any players moving from interstate to try and make it here though going to a club in Div 1.

Agree with all of this, but the whole point of it is for players such as Kelly and Matthias to be playing against better players every week, so they can improve. Once they make it, it's not such a problem, as they're barely available at club level.

I think there needs to be a loan system and some sort of financial compensation given to Div 2 clubs for loss of their state contract players. For example, Kelly can go to the highest bidder/or his preference, but is obligated to return to Sturt when/if they reach Div 1.

I also think the format for Div 2 - 5 sides and an U19 State side makes for a very average competition. Why not improve the whole competition and while they're at it, fixture 50 over and 20 over competitions for every Division. Based on the ladder positions, this is how it would look for next season they rewrote all grades:

Division 1
Kensington
Port Adelaide
Adelaide University
West Torrens
Glenelg
Tea Tree Gully
East Torrens
Woodville

Division 2
Sturt
Northern Districts
Prospect
Adelaide
Southern District
Glenelg 2
Adelaide University 2
Kensington 2

Division 3
Tea Tree Gully 2
Adelaide 2
Port Adelaide 2
Northern Districts 2
Sturt 2
West Torrens 2
East Torrens 2
Southern District 2

Division 4
Woodville 2
Prospect 2
Glenelg 3
Kensington 3
East Torrens 3
Tea Tree Gully 3
Sturt 3
Adelaide University 3

Division 5
Prospect 3
West Torrens 3
Northern Districts 3
Adelaide 3
Southern District 3
Woodville 3
Port Adelaide 3
Kensington 4
Sturt 4
Glenelg 4

Division 6
Tea Tree Gully 4
Port Adelaide 4
Prospect 4
East Torrens 4
Adelaide University 4
Northern Districts 4
Woodville 4
West Torrens 4
Adelaide 4
Southern District 4

Heard rumour Kensington D Grade been disqualified for playing someone in Semi who had not played that grade all season. Port lodged a protest and was upheld. How can such a successful and well run club make such an error

Sturt now play Port, wonder if venues will all be adjusted and they get the Price Memorial Oval and 16 Whites find a new oval?

Eagles2014 wrote:Heard rumour Kensington D Grade been disqualified for playing someone in Semi who had not played that grade all season. Port lodged a protest and was upheld. How can such a successful and well run club make such an error

Sturt now play Port, wonder if venues will all be adjusted and they get the Price Memorial Oval and 16 Whites find a new oval?

Didn't Kensington have all grades still alive in finals? How is this possible?

heater31 wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:Heard rumour Kensington D Grade been disqualified for playing someone in Semi who had not played that grade all season. Port lodged a protest and was upheld. How can such a successful and well run club make such an error

Sturt now play Port, wonder if venues will all be adjusted and they get the Price Memorial Oval and 16 Whites find a new oval?

Didn't Kensington have all grades still alive in finals? How is this possible?

Looked up the team and they played a Nathan Woods, batted three and made 50. Played all year in their ATCA LO1 team and made a century and a 76 during the season.

Why play him? They would have left out players as such a strong club. Surely they realised that doesn’t pass the Pub test? Sympathy for the players who played all year, but as been mentioned on the other cricket forums where similar things happened, you have to check these dubious decisions out BEFORE the game

Eagles2014 wrote:

heater31 wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:Heard rumour Kensington D Grade been disqualified for playing someone in Semi who had not played that grade all season. Port lodged a protest and was upheld. How can such a successful and well run club make such an error

Sturt now play Port, wonder if venues will all be adjusted and they get the Price Memorial Oval and 16 Whites find a new oval?

Didn't Kensington have all grades still alive in finals? How is this possible?

Looked up the team and they played a Nathan Woods, batted three and made 50. Played all year in their ATCA LO1 team and made a century and a 76 during the season.

Why play him? They would have left out players as such a strong club. Surely they realised that doesn’t pass the Pub test? Sympathy for the players who played all year, but as been mentioned on the other cricket forums where similar things happened, you have to check these dubious decisions out BEFORE the game

That's a bit different!

heater31 wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:

heater31 wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:Heard rumour Kensington D Grade been disqualified for playing someone in Semi who had not played that grade all season. Port lodged a protest and was upheld. How can such a successful and well run club make such an error

Sturt now play Port, wonder if venues will all be adjusted and they get the Price Memorial Oval and 16 Whites find a new oval?

Didn't Kensington have all grades still alive in finals? How is this possible?

Looked up the team and they played a Nathan Woods, batted three and made 50. Played all year in their ATCA LO1 team and made a century and a 76 during the season.

Why play him? They would have left out players as such a strong club. Surely they realised that doesn’t pass the Pub test? Sympathy for the players who played all year, but as been mentioned on the other cricket forums where similar things happened, you have to check these dubious decisions out BEFORE the game

That's a bit different!

Yep, SACA and ATCA different comps altogether, sure he is representing the same Club, but still not allowed. Had lots of college commitments, but could have played a kid from the 16 Reds whose season was over.

Corona Man - your son still playing at Kensy this year or did he retire after winning the C Grade premiership last season? Heard any goss on this?

I was at the game. Woods had played in lower grades this year. Surely they can bring a player up?

A heap of kids out with school cricket commitments.

Eags. Lad missed most of season with injury. Played 4 or 5 games. Is playing in the D’s assuming they are still in.

Even if they take Woodsy 50 off the Kensy total, the browns still win. Bowled Port out for 60!

I've also just heard they got a permit for him to play in the Semi.

Corona Man wrote:I was at the game. Woods had played in lower grades this year. Surely they can bring a player up?

A heap of kids out with school cricket commitments.

Eags. Lad missed most of season with injury. Played 4 or 5 games. Is playing in the D’s assuming they are still in.

Even if they take Woodsy 50 off the Kensy total, the browns still win. Bowled Port out for 60!

I've also just heard they got a permit for him to play in the Semi.

Will be interesting what happens then - Port trained last night and believe they are playing in the Grand Final on the weekend

Eagles2014 wrote:

Corona Man wrote:I was at the game. Woods had played in lower grades this year. Surely they can bring a player up?

A heap of kids out with school cricket commitments.

Eags. Lad missed most of season with injury. Played 4 or 5 games. Is playing in the D’s assuming they are still in.

Even if they take Woodsy 50 off the Kensy total, the browns still win. Bowled Port out for 60!

I've also just heard they got a permit for him to play in the Semi.

Will be interesting what happens then - Port trained last night and believe they are playing in the Grand Final on the weekend

Good luck to them. FWIW - A 16 y/o opened the batting on Saturday, and made 60. The same score as all 11 Port bats.....

Actually he beat them. They only made 57.

Still listed as Kensington v Sturt for the GF...

DOC wrote:Actually he beat them. They only made 57.

Even better!

I think there may be a bit to play out here based on a text message I just received.

heater31 wrote:Still listed as Kensington v Sturt for the GF...

Sturt be licking their lips - would be an easy premiership if get to play Port

If SACA gave a permit then they have no leg to stand on. Personally, I dont think they should have as ATCA is totally different comp, just play another kid from 16 Reds. But you cant now disqualify them after giving approval, think Kensy will get this decision reversed!

Final decision to be made tomorrow afternoon apparently regarding 4th grade gf

Nathan Woods isn't the player in question either from what ihave heard.
Possibly a play named Eckert?

Woods got a permit no worries by all reports.
Kensington apparently applied for a permit for Eckert, and the permit came through. The sticking point is the SACA permit committee didn't agree to the permit, some pen pusher at SACA offices just accepted it without going to committee. Which is apparently not in the SACA BY-Laws.

Farcical scenes if you ask me.

Insider_Trading wrote:Final decision to be made tomorrow afternoon apparently regarding 4th grade gf

Nathan Woods isn't the player in question either from what ihave heard.
Possibly a play named Eckert?

Woods got a permit no worries by all reports.
Kensington apparently applied for a permit for Eckert, and the permit came through. The sticking point is the SACA permit committee didn't agree to the permit, some pen pusher at SACA offices just accepted it without going to committee. Which is apparently not in the SACA BY-Laws.

Farcical scenes if you ask me.

H.Eckert batted 11 made a duck and didn't bowl.

heater31 wrote:Still listed as Kensington v Sturt for the GF...

Three teams to turn up?

Armchair expert wrote:

Insider_Trading wrote:Final decision to be made tomorrow afternoon apparently regarding 4th grade gf

Nathan Woods isn't the player in question either from what ihave heard.
Possibly a play named Eckert?

Woods got a permit no worries by all reports.
Kensington apparently applied for a permit for Eckert, and the permit came through. The sticking point is the SACA permit committee didn't agree to the permit, some pen pusher at SACA offices just accepted it without going to committee. Which is apparently not in the SACA BY-Laws.

Farcical scenes if you ask me.

H.Eckert batted 11 made a duck and didn't bowl.

A final decision here expected late, very late, this afternoon. Can't understand why it would take that long for the SACA to get their heads together and find out what has "gone wrong". If someone within granted approval, without going to the permit committee (as it sounds) then not sure how a penalty can then be passed to Kensington. Given that the player in question did not have any impact on the actual result, it would be a tough call to be stripped of the semi final win, which was by any measure, convincing.