SA Footy

bazza1 wrote:

Keefy wrote:

bazza1 wrote:Never in my 35 years of ASCA have I seen such an aggressive game of cricket, that was played on one of the ovals at Victoria Park. The game was Grand Masters v Western Youth in Section 9
It was getting fairly close to being physical.

Any idea what went on?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Poor umpiring from what I can gather.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looking at the scores on playhq, a bloke dropping down from section 3 made 211* for WYC.
I'd be pretty upset too.

Moe wrote:

bazza1 wrote:

Keefy wrote:

bazza1 wrote:Never in my 35 years of ASCA have I seen such an aggressive game of cricket, that was played on one of the ovals at Victoria Park. The game was Grand Masters v Western Youth in Section 9
It was getting fairly close to being physical.

Any idea what went on?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Poor umpiring from what I can gather.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looking at the scores on playhq, a bloke dropping down from section 3 made 211* for WYC.
I'd be pretty upset too.

Apparently a week 1 player only according to their facebook page, but only 11 named on Play HQ

Mind you Grand Masters can push the limits with appeals and decisions

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Sutton Derby outrighted again.

76 and 7/16 off 11.4 overs. 8 blokes roll up for day 2

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Would Western Youth do better? [emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not going well then. Do they make it to Xmas?

Anyone know if my favourite club Flagstaff Hill got a team up for section 9 this game?
No results up or a team named.
Asking for a friend.....

Moe wrote:Anyone know if my favourite club Flagstaff Hill got a team up for section 9 this game?
No results up or a team named.
Asking for a friend.....

They forfeited again

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Played against Flagstaff yesterday, they were saying they only have sixteen players. They have now pulled their B grade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bazza1 wrote:Played against Flagstaff yesterday, they were saying they only have sixteen players. They have now pulled there B grade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. I actually heard the same today from a board meeting of the association.

Now that's sorted, I'll concentrate on the WYC bashing.

It won't be long until I'm banned from their fb page, but they are certainly taking the p!55 with the association.

I am barracking for any other team in section 3.

This is a bigger farce than putting SD in section 1.

I used to respect this club.

Joke

Moe wrote:

bazza1 wrote:Played against Flagstaff yesterday, they were saying they only have sixteen players. They have now pulled there B grade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. I actually heard the same today from a board meeting of the association.

Now that's sorted, I'll concentrate on the WYC bashing.

It won't be long until I'm banned from their fb page, but they are certainly taking the p!55 with the association.

I am barracking for any other team in section 3.

This is a bigger farce than putting SD in section 1.

I used to respect this club.

Joke

Absolutely spot on. Booney as a Life Member recently of this Club must be so embarrassed!

They should have been made to play this year in Div 1, if they lose every game then bad luck, down to Div 2 next season. Lose every game again next season and then down to Div 3, fair enough. To be placed in Div 3 this season and to be totally taking the pi55 is the biggest joke of the season by this Association

Not sure where you think the Facebook bashing will get you Moe, targeting the WYCCC Facebook admin isn't where you should take out your frustration in my opinion. People volunteering to admin the page and you're taking them to task. Good on you if you're enjoying it.

The Association has made some awful calls over the winter, Sutton Derby in Section 1 and my old club to Section 3 both appear to have been errors in judgement, if you've got a problem with how the association handled both clubs requests then take it up with them.

It's hard for clubs to predict how teams will go. Lots of moving parts and cricket is a game where even 1-2 key ins or outs makes a massive difference.

There perhaps needs to be a better mechanism in place to fix errors that might only become obvious after a few rounds.

I know it's neat and tidy to publish the full draw, October to March, every division filled, at the beginning of the season but perhaps it would be more prudent to do 3-4 rounds, let divisions and clubs fully settle, then finalise the season program.

I know that creates its own complications but are they worse than the current ones?

SD have a win under the belt, albeit with 6 “Fill-ins”.

One in a row!

Lightning McQueen wrote:SD have a win under the belt, albeit with 6 “Fill-ins”.

One in a row!

Was only the first week, premature celebration

Starting to think the addition of Sutton Derby may be financially driven. How much would they have been fined by now for no captains reports and putting their stats in late?

Probably end up paying for the execs new merch in the end.

Speaking of $, Keswick have paid huge money to get Uni’s opening bowler from the district Premier Cricket A Grade final. Didnt play week 1 against Porties, is playing week 2. Be interesting to see how it goes. Keswick: a once great, now dying club, moved to pay big cash in a last ditch attempt to stay competitive.

Was watching a clip from the Sutton Derby match from last round, did I notice that the official umpire was wearing shorts?

The Old Fellow wrote:Was watching a clip from the Sutton Derby match from last round, did I notice that the official umpire was wearing shorts?

does it really matter?

woodublieve12 wrote:

The Old Fellow wrote:Was watching a clip from the Sutton Derby match from last round, did I notice that the official umpire was wearing shorts?

does it really matter?

Yes.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:

The Old Fellow wrote:Was watching a clip from the Sutton Derby match from last round, did I notice that the official umpire was wearing shorts?

does it really matter?

Yes.

I noted that your rules allow players to wear shorts although very few do, but an umpire needs to look respectable and official and wearing shorts doesn't do it. May not affect his decision making but the look especially when the players don't do it.