Adelaide and Suburban Cricket Association 2010/11

[Moe]

I'm sure everyone has an Andrew Wright story. Going back a while ago to when both the Thomas boys were playing for us in a game against Warradale Andrew took 5 runs off us for Michael swearing at himself after bowling a no-ball (no one had heard of the 5 run penalty at that stage) which set the tone for the day. Things got more and more heated as the game went on until the last over, we need 6 to win. 1,6 game over, crowd goes wild (played at Brighton High so could have been worse if all our "fans" were there) and some one yells "take 5 runs off for that you *******". Andrew immedately stops, takes 5 more runs off and the game continues. In all the commotion I don't remember exact details of what happend in the last 4 balls but we fell short. On tribunal Andrew tries to blame the final incident on Michael who was 5 KM away, back at the club setting up for his birthday that night. Game ends up being declared a draw and funnily enough we haven't had an issue with Andrew since. Pretty sure that's also the reason for the penalty runs section in the scorebook now.

Biggest shame of it all was a young kid of ours was robbed of hitting a six to win in about his 5th Section 1 game, I'm still pissed off about that!

I was the scorer that day and recall the last ball we Morphies needed 2 to win and Jason Crisp was run out going for the second ( & winning ) run. The game should have been called a tie, as the first run counts as it was completed, but Andrew was steadfast that the run did not count. I argued for a while as i had scored at A grade district level for 5 years & was quite confident i was correct (which i was), but got nowhere & the players from both sides were getting very animated towards each other & Andrew so i decided to hottail it out of there.

As i was club president at the time, i also sat in at the tribunal meeting in the aftermath, and whilst Andrew did concede he had made a mistake in the runout situation, & we were awarded the extra & tying run, he would not budge on his belief that it was "One of the Thomas boys" who had yelled abuse after the original winning 6, even when it was proved that both of them were, as mentioned, miles away setting up for their joint 21st birthday party.

As for the "KID" who hit the 6, well he did get over it i am sure SG1

[Jabber]

Gee, you don't have to study a rule book to know that you only lose the run that your attempting to make if you get run out!!!!!

Our A Grade tied a Grand Final a few years back doing exactly that, fair enuff tho, they only had 20 overs to score that extra run to win the GF.

I'm sure everyone has an Andrew Wright story. Going back a while ago to when both the Thomas boys were playing for us in a game against Warradale Andrew took 5 runs off us for Michael swearing at himself after bowling a no-ball (no one had heard of the 5 run penalty at that stage) which set the tone for the day. Things got more and more heated as the game went on until the last over, we need 6 to win. 1,6 game over, crowd goes wild (played at Brighton High so could have been worse if all our "fans" were there) and some one yells "take 5 runs off for that you *******". Andrew immedately stops, takes 5 more runs off and the game continues. In all the commotion I don't remember exact details of what happend in the last 4 balls but we fell short. On tribunal Andrew tries to blame the final incident on Michael who was 5 KM away, back at the club setting up for his birthday that night. Game ends up being declared a draw and funnily enough we haven't had an issue with Andrew since. Pretty sure that's also the reason for the penalty runs section in the scorebook now.

Biggest shame of it all was a young kid of ours was robbed of hitting a six to win in about his 5th Section 1 game, I'm still pissed off about that!

I was the scorer that day and recall the last ball we Morphies needed 2 to win and Jason Crisp was run out going for the second ( & winning ) run. The game should have been called a tie, as the first run counts as it was completed, but Andrew was steadfast that the run did not count. I argued for a while as i had scored at A grade district level for 5 years & was quite confident i was correct (which i was), but got nowhere & the players from both sides were getting very animated towards each other & Andrew so i decided to hottail it out of there.

As i was club president at the time, i also sat in at the tribunal meeting in the aftermath, and whilst Andrew did concede he had made a mistake in the runout situation, & we were awarded the extra & tying run, he would not budge on his belief that it was "One of the Thomas boys" who had yelled abuse after the original winning 6, even when it was proved that both of them were, as mentioned, miles away setting up for their joint 21st birthday party.

As for the "KID" who hit the 6, well he did get over it i am sure SG1

[Tubby]

I think the best part of the hearing in regards to the game was when Andrew told the Excutive Committee that it was Michael who yelled the comment at him, and then i got to tell them that Michael wasn't even their at the time, the looks the excutive's faces was GOLD !!!

[woodublieve12]

any sides looking like they may be relegated?

[Barn]

any sides looking like they may be relegated?

Depending on the outcome of the voting at next years association AGM there could be a number of changes. The 7x2day + 7 x 1 day game proposal expected to be presented again this year would mean as many as four teams from each grade would face necessary relegation. Given current standings this could lead to the following occurring:
Sheidow, South Rd, Plympton and WOS moving down to Section 2 - forcing Sheidow, SRCC and PFC B grade teams to section 3 and so on and so forth.
This would lead to a wide range of debate - possible new teams coming in from southern comps and what about those teams that are dominant in Section 2 and other grades currently such as North Haven and perennial performers Belair.

If this were to occur it could be argued that the standard of cricket at the top level of the comp would be enhanced, but to have the same opportunity for players to participate we could need as many as 9 sections to accommodate the teams already in the association.

Interesting times ahead .... but fear of change should never be a reason for not trying something - nor should fear of failure. If the proposal does not work effectively there is no reason that you couldn't just change back. We need to keep our eyes open to ways to attract quality and youth to our competition and it could readily be argued that our current format has a lessening appeal as the years go by.

[Jabber]

Currently the fixturing "isn't broken" so why change things for change's sake? Don't worry about not being affraid of change, how about not being affraid to not **** around with something that is working succesfully!

If anything you could argue that A&SCA is probably currently the strongest hard wicket comp in South Australia, so whatever the current model is doing, it appears to be doing it right.

Clubs are now, more than ever, coming into our competition, but how many are leaving? Bugger all. Which would mean that the comp is strong.

There only needs to be one change, a 1 dayer 1st game after xmas. Thats it.

any sides looking like they may be relegated?

Depending on the outcome of the voting at next years association AGM there could be a number of changes. The 7x2day + 7 x 1 day game proposal expected to be presented again this year would mean as many as four teams from each grade would face necessary relegation. Given current standings this could lead to the following occurring:
Sheidow, South Rd, Plympton and WOS moving down to Section 2 - forcing Sheidow, SRCC and PFC B grade teams to section 3 and so on and so forth.
This would lead to a wide range of debate - possible new teams coming in from southern comps and what about those teams that are dominant in Section 2 and other grades currently such as North Haven and perennial performers Belair.

If this were to occur it could be argued that the standard of cricket at the top level of the comp would be enhanced, but to have the same opportunity for players to participate we could need as many as 9 sections to accommodate the teams already in the association.

Interesting times ahead .... but fear of change should never be a reason for not trying something - nor should fear of failure. If the proposal does not work effectively there is no reason that you couldn't just change back. We need to keep our eyes open to ways to attract quality and youth to our competition and it could readily be argued that our current format has a lessening appeal as the years go by.

[Amateur Footy]

I'm with Jabber on this. I like the 12 team format with most games being 2-dayers. I'm not a fan of 40 overs as it limits batting and bowling. Also, creating 8 team comps makes premierships easier to win with only 8 teams in each section instead of 12. Each year the assoc will hand out 3 or 4 more premierships. Pointless.

Clubs struggling for numbers is generally a sign of a lazy comittee (tho I will accept special circumstances in some cases). We have as many players as we've ever had at the Ramblers so the format is no issue for us.

[smithy]

Just curious as to how the A&SCA committee fit Cove into the A Grade this season.
If an extra team was relegated how was it handled/received by the clubs ?

Do you think they would go down that track again if a new club came in and they felt Section 1 was an appropriate starting point ?

[CoverKing]

Just curious as to how the A&SCA committee fit Cove into the A Grade this season.
If an extra team was relegated how was it handled/received by the clubs ?

Do you think they would go down that track again if a new club came in and they felt Section 1 was an appropriate starting point ?

No side was willing to be promoted from section 2 and north haven asked to go down from section 1 I believe. That allowed an easy decision on cove to be made

[Gowser]

I'm with Jabber on this. I like the 12 team format with most games being 2-dayers. I'm not a fan of 40 overs as it limits batting and bowling. Also, creating 8 team comps makes premierships easier to win with only 8 teams in each section instead of 12. Each year the assoc will hand out 3 or 4 more premierships. Pointless.

Clubs struggling for numbers is generally a sign of a lazy comittee (tho I will accept special circumstances in some cases). We have as many players as we've ever had at the Ramblers so the format is no issue for us.

Pretty narrow minded point of view there. The current proposal is only 3 less 2 day games (from 10 down to 7), in reality, it is less as there is usually at least one game a season weather effected, not a great loss. An 8 team comp would not make it any easier to win a flag, if anything it would indeed make it harder with a much tighter ladder and less of a gap between the 'strongest' and 'weakest' teams. It would also create a more fair fixture, currently any club who draws the weakest team in the 1-dayer is at a disadvantage.
Having 3 or 4 more sections would allow tighter ladders through all sections. One day games make the game more accessible and would increase participation, especially for those who are unable to commit to consecutive weekends of cricket.

Suggesting clubs struggling for numbers are a result of 'lazy committees' is just ignorant.

Personally i prefer 75 over games but can appreciate the reasons and benefits of change.

[woodublieve12]

I'm with Jabber on this. I like the 12 team format with most games being 2-dayers. I'm not a fan of 40 overs as it limits batting and bowling. Also, creating 8 team comps makes premierships easier to win with only 8 teams in each section instead of 12. Each year the assoc will hand out 3 or 4 more premierships. Pointless.

Clubs struggling for numbers is generally a sign of a lazy comittee (tho I will accept special circumstances in some cases). We have as many players as we've ever had at the Ramblers so the format is no issue for us.

Pretty narrow minded point of view there. The current proposal is only 3 less 2 day games (from 10 down to 7), in reality, it is less as there is usually at least one game a season weather effected, not a great loss. An 8 team comp would not make it any easier to win a flag, if anything it would indeed make it harder with a much tighter ladder and less of a gap between the 'strongest' and 'weakest' teams. It would also create a more fair fixture, currently any club who draws the weakest team in the 1-dayer is at a disadvantage.
Having 3 or 4 more sections would allow tighter ladders through all sections. One day games make the game more accessible and would increase participation, especially for those who are unable to commit to consecutive weekends of cricket.

Suggesting clubs struggling for numbers are a result of 'lazy committees' is just ignorant.

Personally i prefer 75 over games but can appreciate the reasons and benefits of change.

ain't broke so dont fix it!!!

[Tony Clifton]

I like the idea of fewer teams in each division. Means a higher % of teams get to make the finals which is the main reason anyone plays. Often teams are out of the running by Christmas and these clubs find it hard to maintain enthusiasm/numbers right through the season.

Top four plus bottom two relegated will keep things very interesting right through to the last game for all teams.

[Jabber]

I'm with Jabber on this. I like the 12 team format with most games being 2-dayers. I'm not a fan of 40 overs as it limits batting and bowling. Also, creating 8 team comps makes premierships easier to win with only 8 teams in each section instead of 12. Each year the assoc will hand out 3 or 4 more premierships. Pointless.

Clubs struggling for numbers is generally a sign of a lazy comittee (tho I will accept special circumstances in some cases). We have as many players as we've ever had at the Ramblers so the format is no issue for us.

Pretty narrow minded point of view there. The current proposal is only 3 less 2 day games (from 10 down to 7), in reality, it is less as there is usually at least one game a season weather effected, not a great loss. An 8 team comp would not make it any easier to win a flag, if anything it would indeed make it harder with a much tighter ladder and less of a gap between the 'strongest' and 'weakest' teams. It would also create a more fair fixture, currently any club who draws the weakest team in the 1-dayer is at a disadvantage.
Having 3 or 4 more sections would allow tighter ladders through all sections. One day games make the game more accessible and would increase participation, especially for those who are unable to commit to consecutive weekends of cricket.

Suggesting clubs struggling for numbers are a result of 'lazy committees' is just ignorant.

Personally i prefer 75 over games but can appreciate the reasons and benefits of change.

The concept is rubbish. There that's narrow mindedness!

I challenge anyone who likes this concept to explain to me what is wrong with what we have, give me 5 points that explain to me that the current system is wrong! And i don't want 5 points why the new system would be better, i want 5 simple points to explain why what we have now is not working...

Here, i'll even give you 5 dot points so you can fill them out...

1)



2)



3)



4)



5)

[Amateur Footy]

I'm with Jabber on this. I like the 12 team format with most games being 2-dayers. I'm not a fan of 40 overs as it limits batting and bowling. Also, creating 8 team comps makes premierships easier to win with only 8 teams in each section instead of 12. Each year the assoc will hand out 3 or 4 more premierships. Pointless.

Clubs struggling for numbers is generally a sign of a lazy comittee (tho I will accept special circumstances in some cases). We have as many players as we've ever had at the Ramblers so the format is no issue for us.

Pretty narrow minded point of view there. The current proposal is only 3 less 2 day games (from 10 down to 7), in reality, it is less as there is usually at least one game a season weather effected, not a great loss. An 8 team comp would not make it any easier to win a flag, if anything it would indeed make it harder with a much tighter ladder and less of a gap between the 'strongest' and 'weakest' teams. It would also create a more fair fixture, currently any club who draws the weakest team in the 1-dayer is at a disadvantage.
Having 3 or 4 more sections would allow tighter ladders through all sections. One day games make the game more accessible and would increase participation, especially for those who are unable to commit to consecutive weekends of cricket.

Suggesting clubs struggling for numbers are a result of 'lazy committees' is just ignorant.

Personally i prefer 75 over games but can appreciate the reasons and benefits of change.

Your logic does not make any sense. So it is easier to win a flag with 12 teams than 8?

Will Keswick put their hand up to be one of the clubs demoted from Section 1? I assume you want the bottom 4 to go down.

[someguy1]

Well we're done, ANA won outright. They passed pretty easy first dig and declared. We made 150 off 26 overs to set the game up and they went past 9 down with 8 balls to spare, S Rowe hit a six about a foot over deep mid wickets head for the winning runs. bugger.

[Bertie Beetle]

Coromandel beat Sheidow Park reasonably comfortably today, passed the total 6 down with plenty of overs left. Oakey made 79 and a couple of other contributed 20's

[Heat]

Can someone tell me is there such a thing as a no ball dead ball rule in cricket,we found a couple of Andrews decisions yesterday intresting when the bowler was running in and dropped the ball his decision is a no ball dead ball so a run goes to the batting side im not sure but i think Andrew may have wrote this rule ?

[Newsbreaker]

Can someone tell me is there such a thing as a no ball dead ball rule in cricket,we found a couple of Andrews decisions yesterday intresting when the bowler was running in and dropped the ball his decision is a no ball dead ball so a run goes to the batting side im not sure but i think Andrew may have wrote this rule ?

there is no-such thing as a dead-ball no-ball. If the bowler runs in and drops the ball its just a dead-ball, I think this umpire is just making up his own rules.

[caleb777]

Ramblers over cove in 2020 grand final today, Cove struggled early and didnt recover well, all out for 80, ramblers passed it 3 down, nick work and smithy making 30 odd each with some very lusty blows.

[OSB RD.]

U/21's lost to Para Districs today. Batted first made 230 odd with Jamie Quirke from North Haven making 109. They chased it down in the 38th over. Spinners bowled well but the quickies got smashed. Dropped a couple of very easy chances late which probly cost us.

Para Districs played Turf in the seniors on the oval next to us and killed em by about 90 runs.