SA Footy

ATCA have said that GG go thru by the first innings win but Iggies not accepting this, by laws aren’t real clear on it as well.

The_Informer wrote:ATCA have said that GG go thru by the first innings win but Iggies not accepting this, by laws aren’t real clear on it as well.

Bylaw is clear. In the event of a tie the higher ranked team goes through. No mention of first innings within the bylaw. Iggies should go through

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

bloods08 wrote:

Sonofbrowny25 wrote:

helicopterking wrote:Woody Rech win on last ball of the day defending 133 in a 30 over match against Ingle Farm

Wowee well Tos win 4 down chasing 196 after being 3/15

Check out the gg old iggies game i don’t know who goes through


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Golden Grove you’d think considering they won on first innings.

I would think the higher ranked team goes through, given it finished as a tie

tedbullpit wrote:

The_Informer wrote:ATCA have said that GG go thru by the first innings win but Iggies not accepting this, by laws aren’t real clear on it as well.

Bylaw is clear. In the event of a tie the higher ranked team goes through. No mention of first innings within the bylaw. Iggies should go through

I thought it was only a tie if the side batting second is bowled out with scores level.
It would be a tie in a 1-day game (or T20), but for the purposes of an outright, you need to be bowled out with the scores level for it to be a tie (i think).
Given iggies weren't bowled out, I believe it is simply a second innings draw, in which case the first innings result stands, as it would if iggies were 20 runs short.

It's a good test of the bylaws. Been a few of those this weekend!!!

Correct Trader. Game was drawn as a 4 innings game because can only be a tie if the team batting last is fully dismissed. Therefore GG only team to achieve a result so they must progress. By-law does need tidying up though. Needs to say that a team must win outright to be declared the winner of a final. Imagine if scores are tied with 9 down and one ball to go and the player gets out. Under current bylaw that is a more positive outcome than playing and missing and ending in a draw.

How did Pooraka not get on for a game this weekend? Do PAOC have a case to put forward here? They would be steaming.

Down the Hill wrote:Correct Trader. Game was drawn as a 4 innings game because can only be a tie if the team batting last is fully dismissed. Therefore GG only team to achieve a result so they must progress. By-law does need tidying up though. Needs to say that a team must win outright to be declared the winner of a final. Imagine if scores are tied with 9 down and one ball to go and the player gets out. Under current bylaw that is a more positive outcome than playing and missing and ending in a draw.

Doesnt need to be a by law its covered in gthe laws of cricket unless you want something different to the laws.
It happened in the BLCA 2 years ago and after much correspondance with SACA and reading the laws of cricket it is clear that the result is 1st innings only, as some have said its only a tie if the team batting 4th is dismissed with scores level.

thevoice wrote:How did Pooraka not get on for a game this weekend? Do PAOC have a case to put forward here? They would be steaming.

They have covers. Why didn't they go on?

Whatever the outcome of the A3 Game between Igs and GG, it was still a fantastic game. Iggies need 22 off the last over with Woody Shaw hitting a huge 6 off the last ball to make scores equal. Some confusion arose with GG initially awarded the win via the ATCA, however after consulting the by-laws, there was even more confusion. Hopefully a result to be announced soon.

tigerpie wrote:

thevoice wrote:How did Pooraka not get on for a game this weekend? Do PAOC have a case to put forward here? They would be steaming.

They have covers. Why didn't they go on?

Covers were put on on Saturday night.
The bowling run ups were the problem. One end in particular was very wet.

thevoice wrote:How did Pooraka not get on for a game this weekend? Do PAOC have a case to put forward here? They would be steaming.

I live at Mawson Lakes and not far from Lindblom Park, the wind and rain was torrential during the early hours of Sunday morning, I took my son to his game around 7:30 and I didn't hold any hope of his game being played and that was on hard wicket.

Brumbies wrote:

tigerpie wrote:

thevoice wrote:How did Pooraka not get on for a game this weekend? Do PAOC have a case to put forward here? They would be steaming.

They have covers. Why didn't they go on?

Covers were put on on Saturday night.
The bowling run ups were the problem. One end in particular was very wet.

I'm pretty sure Pooraka don't have covers. The covers that were used on Saturday night were provided by PAOC and yes the bowling run ups were the problem. I can understand PAOC being frustrated, but no one can control the weather. Highlights the importance of finishing higher on the ladder and the benefit of having a home final.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Brumbies wrote:

tigerpie wrote:

thevoice wrote:How did Pooraka not get on for a game this weekend? Do PAOC have a case to put forward here? They would be steaming.

They have covers. Why didn't they go on?

Covers were put on on Saturday night.
The bowling run ups were the problem. One end in particular was very wet.

I'm pretty sure Pooraka don't have covers. The covers that were used on Saturday night were provided by PAOC and yes the bowling run ups were the problem. I can understand PAOC being frustrated, but no one can control the weather. Highlights the importance of finishing higher on the ladder and the benefit of having a home final.

Isn't it a requirement to host an A1 final you must have covers?

heater31 wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Brumbies wrote:Covers were put on on Saturday night.
The bowling run ups were the problem. One end in particular was very wet.

I'm pretty sure Pooraka don't have covers. The covers that were used on Saturday night were provided by PAOC and yes the bowling run ups were the problem. I can understand PAOC being frustrated, but no one can control the weather. Highlights the importance of finishing higher on the ladder and the benefit of having a home final.

Isn't it a requirement to host an A1 final you must have covers?

That's for the GF not SF.

Perversely, had covers not been applied Saturday night, the rain would have soaked in over the entire square, rather than a concentrated point at the bowlers run ups, and play possibly would have occurred.

daysofourlives wrote:

Down the Hill wrote:Correct Trader. Game was drawn as a 4 innings game because can only be a tie if the team batting last is fully dismissed. Therefore GG only team to achieve a result so they must progress. By-law does need tidying up though. Needs to say that a team must win outright to be declared the winner of a final. Imagine if scores are tied with 9 down and one ball to go and the player gets out. Under current bylaw that is a more positive outcome than playing and missing and ending in a draw.

Doesnt need to be a by law its covered in gthe laws of cricket unless you want something different to the laws.
It happened in the BLCA 2 years ago and after much correspondance with SACA and reading the laws of cricket it is clear that the result is 1st innings only, as some have said its only a tie if the team batting 4th is dismissed with scores level.

This is where it gets even more confusing as the ATCA Bylaws state - 'In the event of an equality in the aggregate number of runs in which each side has two completed innings, the match shall be regarded as an outright tie.'

tedbullpit wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

Down the Hill wrote:Correct Trader. Game was drawn as a 4 innings game because can only be a tie if the team batting last is fully dismissed. Therefore GG only team to achieve a result so they must progress. By-law does need tidying up though. Needs to say that a team must win outright to be declared the winner of a final. Imagine if scores are tied with 9 down and one ball to go and the player gets out. Under current bylaw that is a more positive outcome than playing and missing and ending in a draw.

Doesnt need to be a by law its covered in gthe laws of cricket unless you want something different to the laws.
It happened in the BLCA 2 years ago and after much correspondance with SACA and reading the laws of cricket it is clear that the result is 1st innings only, as some have said its only a tie if the team batting 4th is dismissed with scores level.

This is where it gets even more confusing as the ATCA Bylaws state - 'In the event of an equality in the aggregate number of runs in which each side has two completed innings, the match shall be regarded as an outright tie.'

Yep i believe that is also in the laws of cricket, so then it becomes what is the definition of a completed innings. All out (or declared) is a completed innings nothing else. It pays not to overthink it, if its a Test match everyone is pretty clear that its a draw and not a tie so run with that. Clubs will always see things through their own rose coloured glasses and try and interpret the laws to suit themselves.
I would be very surprised if any other result than a 1st innings win was declared.

Congrats to Walkerville on making the GF in a very hard fought contest. Walkerville were fortunate enough to have the first crack at us on a damp deck and bowled well. we were quite happy with the 170 we posted considering the conditions.
Yesterday, the 2pm start allowed for deck to be fairly batter friendly as the only concern for the umpires was a soggy patch next to the wicket.
Credit where credits due, Walkerville batted superbly. they were about 1/60 off 42 overs at tea after most of the day the overs were exceeding the runs. Haven't played in a game all year where we had next to no lbw shouts or caught behind shouts. They played very low risk cricket (Cox and Perilli in particular) and Knowles came in and accelerated when they were about 3/100.
Overall, very disappointing to bomb out in the semi, but hopefully in 18/19 we can back up the season we just had

All the best to the teams playing in Grand Finals this weekend, especially our B Grade!

Harry49 wrote:Congrats to Walkerville on making the GF in a very hard fought contest. Walkerville were fortunate enough to have the first crack at us on a damp deck and bowled well. we were quite happy with the 170 we posted considering the conditions.
Yesterday, the 2pm start allowed for deck to be fairly batter friendly as the only concern for the umpires was a soggy patch next to the wicket.
Credit where credits due, Walkerville batted superbly. they were about 1/60 off 42 overs at tea after most of the day the overs were exceeding the runs. Haven't played in a game all year where we had next to no lbw shouts or caught behind shouts. They played very low risk cricket (Cox and Perilli in particular) and Knowles came in and accelerated when they were about 3/100.
Overall, very disappointing to bomb out in the semi, but hopefully in 18/19 we can back up the season we just had

All the best to the teams playing in Grand Finals this weekend, especially our B Grade!

Very noble summary there Harry, it does make for an interesting day when two batsmen grind away to strike at around 30 then someone comes in and half tons at a rate of near 140.

daysofourlives wrote:

tedbullpit wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

Down the Hill wrote:Correct Trader. Game was drawn as a 4 innings game because can only be a tie if the team batting last is fully dismissed. Therefore GG only team to achieve a result so they must progress. By-law does need tidying up though. Needs to say that a team must win outright to be declared the winner of a final. Imagine if scores are tied with 9 down and one ball to go and the player gets out. Under current bylaw that is a more positive outcome than playing and missing and ending in a draw.

Doesnt need to be a by law its covered in gthe laws of cricket unless you want something different to the laws.
It happened in the BLCA 2 years ago and after much correspondance with SACA and reading the laws of cricket it is clear that the result is 1st innings only, as some have said its only a tie if the team batting 4th is dismissed with scores level.

This is where it gets even more confusing as the ATCA Bylaws state - 'In the event of an equality in the aggregate number of runs in which each side has two completed innings, the match shall be regarded as an outright tie.'

Yep i believe that is also in the laws of cricket, so then it becomes what is the definition of a completed innings. All out (or declared) is a completed innings nothing else. It pays not to overthink it, if its a Test match everyone is pretty clear that its a draw and not a tie so run with that. Clubs will always see things through their own rose coloured glasses and try and interpret the laws to suit themselves.
I would be very surprised if any other result than a 1st innings win was declared.

Agree with this

Umpires would have calculated the minimum number of overs for Old Ignations at the completion of Golden Grove's second innings (14), based on time remaining. Once the minimum number of overs is set, it doesn't matter if the game goes beyond the scheduled finishing time. Given the closeness of the finish I would assume there would have been a bit of extra time taken to set fields etc. Can anyone give a run down of the final few balls for Old Ignations? Must have been a pretty crazy last over.

I believe one of there batters hit a six off the last ball to tie it all up! Think they needed 22 off the last over