Grade Cricket

[Bluedemon]

which grade clubs have Under 11s?

[mickey]

Not too many if any I would think

[Bluedemon]

does anyone know of any clubs close to TTG that would?

[heater31]

does anyone know of any clubs close to TTG that would?

Modbury maybe?

[hawks21]

does anyone know of any clubs close to TTG that would?

Modbury have 2 under 11 sides

[Sonofbrowny25]

does anyone know of any clubs close to TTG that would?

Modbury have 2 under 11 sides

Brahma lodge

[Bluedemon]

does anyone know of any clubs close to TTG that would?

Modbury have 2 under 11 sides

I have just emailed one of your contacts, just waiting to hear back.

[bulldogproud2]

Well, we have just seen 'penalty runs for slow over rates' decide an A Grade cricket match.
West Torrens bowled Northern Districts out for 179 (chasing 186) with Trent Kelly taking wickets 8, 9 and 10 in a hat trick.
However, West Torrens bowled their overs in 7.75 minutes more than the time allowed, resulting in a penalty of 12 runs (2 overs). If they had bowled them 16 seconds quicker, they would have won, being penalised just 6 runs (one over).
The irony of it is that if the wicket had fallen at the beginning of the next over rather than the last ball of Trent's over, West Torrens would have won.

[heater31]

Well, we have just seen 'penalty runs for slow over rates' decide an A Grade cricket match.
West Torrens bowled Northern Districts out for 179 (chasing 186) with Trent Kelly taking wickets 8, 9 and 10 in a hat trick.
However, West Torrens bowled their overs in 7.75 minutes more than the time allowed, resulting in a penalty of 12 runs (2 overs). If they had bowled them 16 seconds quicker, they would have won, being penalised just 6 runs (one over).
The irony of it is that if the wicket had fallen at the beginning of the next over rather than the last ball of Trent's over, West Torrens would have won.

[wycbloods]

Well, we have just seen 'penalty runs for slow over rates' decide an A Grade cricket match.
West Torrens bowled Northern Districts out for 179 (chasing 186) with Trent Kelly taking wickets 8, 9 and 10 in a hat trick.
However, West Torrens bowled their overs in 7.75 minutes more than the time allowed, resulting in a penalty of 12 runs (2 overs). If they had bowled them 16 seconds quicker, they would have won, being penalised just 6 runs (one over).
The irony of it is that if the wicket had fallen at the beginning of the next over rather than the last ball of Trent's over, West Torrens would have won.

I always thought over rate only come into it if you bowled the full quota of overs outside the prescribed time.

Penalised because you bowled a team out seems very harsh.

[bulldogproud2]

Well, we have just seen 'penalty runs for slow over rates' decide an A Grade cricket match.
West Torrens bowled Northern Districts out for 179 (chasing 186) with Trent Kelly taking wickets 8, 9 and 10 in a hat trick.
However, West Torrens bowled their overs in 7.75 minutes more than the time allowed, resulting in a penalty of 12 runs (2 overs). If they had bowled them 16 seconds quicker, they would have won, being penalised just 6 runs (one over).
The irony of it is that if the wicket had fallen at the beginning of the next over rather than the last ball of Trent's over, West Torrens would have won.

I always thought over rate only come into it if you bowled the full quota of overs outside the prescribed time.

Penalised because you bowled a team out seems very harsh.

As long as the innings goes longer than three hours, the over rate is taken into account regardless of whether the team is bowled out or not. You are allowed 3.75 minutes per over. You are also allowed two minutes for every wicket which you take (except the last wicket of a completed innings). The Northern District innings went for 277 minutes and we bowled 67 overs exactly. We should have bowled these in 269.25 minutes ((67 * 3.75) + 18). Thus, we were over by 7.75 minutes. As it was more than 7.5 minutes over, we received a 12 run penalty.
If we had taken the wicket at the beginning of the next over, we would have been allocated an extra 3.75 minutes. If that had happened, we would have won.
I should also state that Northern Districts also received a 12 run penalty during our innings. However, our last wicket fell on the third ball of an over (this counted as an extra over, despite being only half of one). A team benefits by taking the wicket early in the over rather than later in the over under this method.

Complicated.. I know.
Way that a cricket match should be decided ... I think that everyone there, including the umpires, say definitely not!
Spitting chips.. not really. Northerns did make five more runs overall.

Cheers

[helicopterking]

Well, we have just seen 'penalty runs for slow over rates' decide an A Grade cricket match.
West Torrens bowled Northern Districts out for 179 (chasing 186) with Trent Kelly taking wickets 8, 9 and 10 in a hat trick.
However, West Torrens bowled their overs in 7.75 minutes more than the time allowed, resulting in a penalty of 12 runs (2 overs). If they had bowled them 16 seconds quicker, they would have won, being penalised just 6 runs (one over).
The irony of it is that if the wicket had fallen at the beginning of the next over rather than the last ball of Trent's over, West Torrens would have won.

I always thought over rate only come into it if you bowled the full quota of overs outside the prescribed time.

Penalised because you bowled a team out seems very harsh.

As long as the innings goes longer than three hours, the over rate is taken into account regardless of whether the team is bowled out or not. You are allowed 3.75 minutes per over. You are also allowed two minutes for every wicket which you take (except the last wicket of a completed innings).The Northern District innings went for 277 minutes and we bowled 67 overs exactly. We should have bowled these in 269.25 minutes ((67 * 3.75) + 18). Thus, we were over by 7.7an 7.5 minived a 12 run
Ifween the wicket ate beginning of the next over, we would have been allocated an extra 3.75 minutes. If that had happened, we would have won.
I should also state that Northern Districts also received a 12 run penalty during our innings. However, our last wicket fell on the third ball of an over (this counted as an extra over, despite being only half of one). A team benefits by taking the wicket early in the over rather than later in the over under this method.

Complicated.. I know.
Way that a cricket match should be decided ... I think that everyone there, including the umpires, say definitely not!
Spitting chips.. not really. Northerns did make five more runs overall.

Cheers

This is a disgrace. Total travisty. Umpires are the ones to blame here. How can the umpires not notify the captains of the final result, before the beginning of the next innings. They decided the result, 20 overs into the.next innings. At no stage was Trent Kelly notified of slow over rate. By not notifying Trent of the result,robbed West torrents a chance of gaining an outright result.
I cant see how a decision can be changed half way threw another innings. I'm guessing the SACA have a fight coming their way

[bloods08]

About time something is being done about slow over-rates. Hopefully it filters into higher levels.

Not sure this case has been handed well though by the looks of it.

[bulldogproud2]

Well, we have just seen 'penalty runs for slow over rates' decide an A Grade cricket match.
West Torrens bowled Northern Districts out for 179 (chasing 186) with Trent Kelly taking wickets 8, 9 and 10 in a hat trick.
However, West Torrens bowled their overs in 7.75 minutes more than the time allowed, resulting in a penalty of 12 runs (2 overs). If they had bowled them 16 seconds quicker, they would have won, being penalised just 6 runs (one over).
The irony of it is that if the wicket had fallen at the beginning of the next over rather than the last ball of Trent's over, West Torrens would have won.

I always thought over rate only come into it if you bowled the full quota of overs outside the prescribed time.

Penalised because you bowled a team out seems very harsh.

As long as the innings goes longer than three hours, the over rate is taken into account regardless of whether the team is bowled out or not. You are allowed 3.75 minutes per over. You are also allowed two minutes for every wicket which you take (except the last wicket of a completed innings).The Northern District innings went for 277 minutes and we bowled 67 overs exactly. We should have bowled these in 269.25 minutes ((67 * 3.75) + 18). Thus, we were over by 7.7an 7.5 minived a 12 run
Ifween the wicket ate beginning of the next over, we would have been allocated an extra 3.75 minutes. If that had happened, we would have won.
I should also state that Northern Districts also received a 12 run penalty during our innings. However, our last wicket fell on the third ball of an over (this counted as an extra over, despite being only half of one). A team benefits by taking the wicket early in the over rather than later in the over under this method.

Complicated.. I know.
Way that a cricket match should be decided ... I think that everyone there, including the umpires, say definitely not!
Spitting chips.. not really. Northerns did make five more runs overall.

Cheers

This is a disgrace. Total travisty. Umpires are the ones to blame here. How can the umpires not notify the captains of the final result, before the beginning of the next innings. They decided the result, 20 overs into the.next innings. At no stage was Trent Kelly notified of slow over rate. By not notifying Trent of the result,robbed West torrents a chance of gaining an outright result.
I cant see how a decision can be changed half way threw another innings. I'm guessing the SACA have a fight coming their way

Actually the umpires did inform the captains of the result of the match before the beginning of the next innings. However, they informed the captains that West Torrens had won. At the tea break, the recalculated and realised they were in error. They then overturned their earlier decision and declared Northern Districts winners.
Do not blame the umpires though, it is the bylaw that needs changing. In the pressure of the situation, with everyone trying to press them for their decision and have it done quickly, it is a very difficult situation for any umpire to be in. No game of two-day cricket should ever need to be decided by a calculation of over-rates.
Cheers

[Dogwatcher]

SACA grade wrap

http://wp.me/p1Tnfg-OF

[helicopterking]

West Torrens bowled Northern Districts out for 179 (chasing 186) with Trent Kelly taking wickets 8, 9 and 10 in a hat trick.
However, West Torrens bowled their overs in 7.75 minutes more than the time allowed, resulting in a penalty of 12 runs (2 overs). If they had bowled them 16 seconds quicker, they would have won, being penalised just 6 runs (one over).
The irony of it is that if the wicket had fallen at the beginning of the next over rather than the last ball of Trent's over, West Torrens would have won.[/quote]

I always thought over rate only come into it if you bowled the full quota of overs outside the prescribed time.

Penalised because you bowled a team out seems very harsh.[/quote]

As long as the innings goes longer than three hours, the over rate is taken into account regardless of whether the team is bowled out or not. You are allowed 3.75 minutes per over. You are also allowed two minutes for every wicket which you take (except the last wicket of a completed innings).The Northern District innings went for 277 minutes and we bowled 67 overs exactly. We should have bowled these in 269.25 minutes ((67 * 3.75) + 18). Thus, we were over by 7.7an 7.5 minived a 12 run
Ifween the wicket ate beginning of the next over, we would have been allocated an extra 3.75 minutes. If that had happened, we would have won.
I should also state that Northern Districts also received a 12 run penalty during our innings. However, our last wicket fell on the third ball of an over (this counted as an extra over, despite being only half of one). A team benefits by taking the wicket early in the over rather than later in the over under this method.

Complicated.. I know.
Way that a cricket match should be decided ... I think that everyone there, including the umpires, say definitely not!
Spitting chips.. not really. Northerns did make five more runs overall.

Cheers[/quote]

This is a disgrace. Total travisty. Umpires are the ones to blame here. How can the umpires not notify the captains of the final result, before the beginning of the next innings. They decided the result, 20 overs into the.next innings. At no stage was Trent Kelly notified of slow over rate. By not notifying Trent of the result,robbed West torrents a chance of gaining an outright result.
I cant see how a decision can be changed half way threw another innings. I'm guessing the SACA have a fight coming their way[/quote]

Actually the umpires did inform the captains of the result of the match before the beginning of the next innings. However, they informed the captains that West Torrens had won. At the tea break, the recalculated and realised they were in error. They then overturned their earlier decision and declared Northern Districts winners.
Do not blame the umpires though, it is the bylaw that needs changing. In the pressure of the situation, with everyone trying to press them for their decision and have it done quickly, it is a very difficult situation for any umpire to be in. No game of two-day cricket should ever need to be decided by a calculation of over-rates.
Cheers[/quote]

Is it true that the computer the scores use. As instructed by Saca say a different time to what the score book says. 1 min difference im told to believe. Now if you go off the computer, WT win by 1 run. If we go off the scorers book ND win. Will SACA believe in the computer system they are trying to encourage, or the scorebook.

[bulldogproud2]

Yes, the computer that the ND scorer was using said 276 minutes but we calculated it manually at 277 minutes. Unfortunately, my computer was not working - teething problems with the new system.
This one minute difference would not normally be a problem but, in this case, does make the significant difference to the result.
It is not an error by the scorers in any way but one simply of the way things are recorded. We record things to the nearest minute (for instance, if the match commenced at 11:00 and 29 seconds, we would record it as 11:00am), whilst the computer would calculate to the second. This timing difference would occur at six stages a day - the beginning and end of each session. It is technically possible therefore for a discrepancy of three minutes a day to occur between a manual calculation and a computer calculation (up to 30 seconds each instance).

Cheers

P.S. A horrible way for a match to be decided. I wish they would just take points off for slow over rates, not runs. Perhaps take 2 points off for every over you are behind.

[mickey]

Wouldn't the computer be more accurate therefore be used?

[daysofourlives]

Yes, the computer that the ND scorer was using said 276 minutes but we calculated it manually at 277 minutes. Unfortunately, my computer was not working - teething problems with the new system.
This one minute difference would not normally be a problem but, in this case, does make the significant difference to the result.
It is not an error by the scorers in any way but one simply of the way things are recorded. We record things to the nearest minute (for instance, if the match commenced at 11:00 and 29 seconds, we would record it as 11:00am), whilst the computer would calculate to the second. This timing difference would occur at six stages a day - the beginning and end of each session. It is technically possible therefore for a discrepancy of three minutes a day to occur between a manual calculation and a computer calculation (up to 30 seconds each instance).

Cheers

P.S. A horrible way for a match to be decided. I wish they would just take points off for slow over rates, not runs. Perhaps take 2 points off for every over you are behind.

How bout just bowl the overs in the alloted time? Problem solved

[Tony Clifton]

Wouldn't the computer be more accurate therefore be used?

Would it?

It still would only record the 'time' at the moment the scorer is typing in what happened - not at the moment it actually happened. Do the two scorers do everything on their laptops in perfect unison, like turning the keys on a nuclear sub?

If a scorer spilled their coffee just when a wicket fell this could cost crucial seconds.