Adelaide Turf Cricket Association 2010-11

[no_remorse28]

any one got any results from the A1-A3 grades

[Tiger Couple]

A1 = Pulteney
A2 = Woodville Rech (One Day game as Goodwood Oval was too wet. Poor form on Goodwoods part)
U/17 South = Grange
U/15 South Div 1 = Brighton
U/15 South Div 2 = Woodville Rech

[Shark_Hunter]

A1 = Pulteney
A2 = Woodville Rech (One Day game as Goodwood Oval was too wet. Poor form on Goodwoods part)
U/17 South = Grange
U/15 South Div 1 = Brighton
U/15 South Div 2 = Woodville Rech

Long overdue for Pulteney, they have been one of the better teams for the past 4-5 seasons but have choked come finals time. I reckon their window was closing as surely Matchett, Ashmead, Marsh won't be around too much longer.
Well done to them though, didn't always get along with Pulteney on the field but always enjoyed a chat and a frosty one with them after the game and glad they finally get to take home a flag.

[rainbow warrior]

A1 = Pulteney
A2 = Woodville Rech (One Day game as Goodwood Oval was too wet. Poor form on Goodwoods part)
U/17 South = Grange
U/15 South Div 1 = Brighton
U/15 South Div 2 = Woodville Rech

Long overdue for Pulteney, they have been one of the better teams for the past 4-5 seasons but have choked come finals time. I reckon their window was closing as surely Matchett, Ashmead, Marsh won't be around too much longer.
Well done to them though, didn't always get along with Pulteney on the field but always enjoyed a chat and a frosty one with them after the game and glad they finally get to take home a flag.

Agree Shark Hunter. They deserve it after all those years. Very talented group of cricketers.

[Silky Johnson]

lost our GF by about 20 runs yesterday, But good on the Pultney player who stumped our opening bat who had a runner, when he wasn't on strike and standing next to the square leg umpire. and then convincing the umpire its out even though he wasn't the on strike batsmen and there was no line marked for him to stand next to the square leg umpire, Glad to see sportsmanship runs deep out there.

Rules are rules. Can't blame the Pulteney player for that. Your guy should have stood behind the stump line just to be sure. No need to be out in front of it[/quote]


The umps were wrong & you've been dudded. The batsman who has a runner can stand absolutely anywhere when he is not on strike. I found this out a few years ago, when I'll admit I had instructed our keeper to stump a particular bloke, but only cos he was being a complete c***! I asked a first class umpire who happened to be at our club later that evening & he confirmed that the non-striking batsman doesn't have to stand behind the crease when not on strike.

[dark & stormy]

that is incorrect, all batsmen must be behind the crease line even if you have a runner.
has been the rule for over 15 years now.

[no_remorse28]

that is incorrect, all batsmen must be behind the crease line even if you have a runner.
has been the rule for over 15 years now.

But you cant stump a bloke when the ball is dead . I believe the ball being dead has been a rule for a while now to

Any way its done now, i had a sook after and now its on to next season. Thats cricket for you

[dark & stormy]

that is incorrect, all batsmen must be behind the crease line even if you have a runner.
has been the rule for over 15 years now.

But you cant stump a bloke when the ball is dead . I believe the ball being dead has been a rule for a while now to

Any way its done now, i had a sook after and now its on to next season. Thats cricket for you

dont get upset mate, but how can the ball be dead if the keeper has stumped him.?
just a question, I only answered a question in my own opinion , if you dont want someone to post something back
then maybe dont put it on a public forum.IMO.........

[no_remorse28]

that is incorrect, all batsmen must be behind the crease line even if you have a runner.
has been the rule for over 15 years now.

But you cant stump a bloke when the ball is dead . I believe the ball being dead has been a rule for a while now to

Any way its done now, i had a sook after and now its on to next season. Thats cricket for you

dont get upset mate, but how can the ball be dead if the keeper has stumped him.?
just a question, I only answered a question in my own opinion , if you dont want someone to post something back
then maybe dont put it on a public forum.IMO.........

The ball went from the keeper to the fielder to go back to the bowler. as the bloke with the runner walked over to the square leg umpire to stand so the next ball could be bowled they through it back to the keeper who broke the stumps, the umpires said not out, Pultney convinced him it was a stumping and thats what it went in the book as. You gonna tell me the ball is not dead if the fielders are getting it back to the bowler who is in position to bowl the next ball ??

As for telling me if i dont want an opinion. I responded with a question, i didnt complain i put it in here to get the rule clarified if some one new. After all i had just lost a grand final.

Like i said though It happens, its cricket and i am getting over the loss albeit slowly haha

[no_remorse28]

that is incorrect, all batsmen must be behind the crease line even if you have a runner.
has been the rule for over 15 years now.

But you cant stump a bloke when the ball is dead . I believe the ball being dead has been a rule for a while now to

Any way its done now, i had a sook after and now its on to next season. Thats cricket for you

dont get upset mate, but how can the ball be dead if the keeper has stumped him.?
just a question, I only answered a question in my own opinion , if you dont want someone to post something back
then maybe dont put it on a public forum.IMO.........

The ball went from the keeper to the fielder to go back to the bowler. as the bloke with the runner walked over to the square leg umpire to stand so the next ball could be bowled they through it back to the keeper who broke the stumps, the umpires said not out, Pultney convinced him it was a stumping and thats what it went in the book as. You gonna tell me the ball is not dead if the fielders are getting it back to the bowler who is in position to bowl the next ball ??

As for telling me if i dont want an opinion. I responded with a question, i didnt complain i put it in here to get the rule clarified if some one new. After all i had just lost a grand final.

Like i said though It happens, its cricket and i am getting over the loss albeit slowly haha

I feel i may not of explained it right. My batsmen with the runner hit the ball and a single was scored. So he was no longer on strike. He walked over to the square leg umpire as u do when u have a runner, so the other batsmen could take strike, the ball was on its was back to the bowler after the single was completed. and then they decided to throw it back to the keeper again and break the stumps as he was standing next to the square legumpire they were saying he is out of crease, even though he was not on strike, or for that matter in play as his runner was at the non strikers end for the ball about to be bowled, The question was how can they get the single, The ball get thrown back to the keeper, who then gets it around the field to go back to the bowler (hence the ball was dead) and then as my bat is going to satnd with square leg they throw it back and break the stumps.

And as i said before cheers to the umps who changed the not out to out after admitting they didnt know the rule.

Thats my final rant on the topic lol onto next season

[Silky Johnson]

that is incorrect, all batsmen must be behind the crease line even if you have a runner.
has been the rule for over 15 years now.

I always thought that was the case too Smasha but it isn't. When the batsman with the runner is off-strike he is out of the game. It is only that he is on strike & the ball is live that both he & the runner must be behind the crease.

This is an extract from Law 2:
(d)When a batsman who has a runner is not the striker
(i)he remains subject to Laws 33 (Handled the ball) and 37 (Obstructing the field) but is otherwise out of the game.
(ii)he shall stand where directed by the striker’s end umpire so as not to interfere with play.
(iii)he will be liable, notwithstanding (i) above, to the penalty demanded by the Laws should he commit any act of unfair play.

[Trader]

Nice one SJ, wasn't aware of that myself!

No Remorse, you boys coming up to LOD next year with Pultney? If so, make sure you let us know before your first rematch so we can all come along and heckle...

[davo]

1) The batsman should have been behind the line at the strikers or non strikers end (don't even try to suggest they don't have to be behind the line, as it is not correct) The rule that was posted only said that where the umpire directs them. That is always behind the line.
2) The ball is NEVER dead in a game of cricket except at the end of an over, when the Umpire calls OVER and during Drinks, Lunch and Tea breaks, when the Umpire calls them only.

[no_remorse28]

Nice one SJ, wasn't aware of that myself!

No Remorse, you boys coming up to LOD next year with Pultney? If so, make sure you let us know before your first rematch so we can all come along and heckle...

I would imagine we are. And it will be nice and fiery when we meet them again

[no_remorse28]

All this confusion over the Law is why i was shocked the umpires changed it from not out to out when they admitted they didn't know the rule.

[Silky Johnson]

1) The batsman should have been behind the line at the strikers or non strikers end (don't even try to suggest they don't have to be behind the line, as it is not correct) The rule that was posted only said that where the umpire directs them. That is always behind the line.
2) The ball is NEVER dead in a game of cricket except at the end of an over, when the Umpire calls OVER and during Drinks, Lunch and Tea breaks, when the Umpire calls them only.

It is correct Davo - read the law and don't assume that umpires always direct the players to stand behind the line. The reality is they don't ever direct the players where to stand - most players will just wander over & stand behind the line but they are not required to.

And I suggest you look at Law 23 as well...

1. Ball is dead
(a) The ball becomes dead when
(i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

That's the first clause - I'll leave you to read the rest of them.

[Silky Johnson]

All this confusion over the Law is why i was shocked the umpires changed it from not out to out when they admitted they didn't know the rule.

Regardless of whether you believe the MCC laws regarding runners, the situation sounds like it could have been covered by this clause in the Dead-Ball Law:

(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play

But then I suppose the fielding side would argue that they did regard the ball still in play...

Having said all of that, it sounds like No Remorse has already put it down as "one of those funny things that happen in cricket" stories & is already looking forward to a re-match, which is the only thing you can do now - good on you NR!

On a different topic, are you blokes still going to be in ATCA next year? Heard a few different stories about that...

[Senor Moto Gadili]

1) The batsman should have been behind the line at the strikers or non strikers end (don't even try to suggest they don't have to be behind the line, as it is not correct) The rule that was posted only said that where the umpire directs them. That is always behind the line.
2) The ball is NEVER dead in a game of cricket except at the end of an over, when the Umpire calls OVER and during Drinks, Lunch and Tea breaks, when the Umpire calls them only.

Davo, I sincerely hope you are not an umpire

[Muffler]

any one got any results from the A1-A3 grades

Ill give you A3 Marion all over Heccies by 100 runs.
Perfect pitch slow out field we made 177 which was enough and were too good.
I am blind Mad monday has been good yewww beauti premiers

[no_remorse28]

All this confusion over the Law is why i was shocked the umpires changed it from not out to out when they admitted they didn't know the rule.

Regardless of whether you believe the MCC laws regarding runners, the situation sounds like it could have been covered by this clause in the Dead-Ball Law:

(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play

But then I suppose the fielding side would argue that they did regard the ball still in play...

Having said all of that, it sounds like No Remorse has already put it down as "one of those funny things that happen in cricket" stories & is already looking forward to a re-match, which is the only thing you can do now - good on you NR!

On a different topic, are you blokes still going to be in ATCA next year? Heard a few different stories about that...

We are working on it buddy. As the Co-ordinator to i have to move on from the GF result and try and get this club into a stable position, but it is a long and hard road ahead ill say that much !