Red Rocket wrote:Strange situation because from all you hear in the street Centrals are itching to get back into the A1's and LP don't seem keen to return just yet
I wouldn't say we are 'itching' to get back in to A1s. We were more worried about finishing higher in case a final is rained/heated out...
TRURO have signed stand-out county cricketer Ben Parish for their Cornwall League campaign this summer.
Parish (28) is a genuine all-rounder who bats in the top-order and bowls seam-up. He boasts a tremendous record at club level and has represented South Australian Country, both the Outbacks and the Country T20 side in SACA’s Premier League Competition.
He has been “Club Champion” for Freeling on three occasions (2007/08, 2008/09, 2013/14). He skippers the club and is one of the most prolific all-rounder’s in the Barossa and Light Cricket Association (A1 Grade).
He has scored 2,854 runs at 39.64 and taken 116 wickets at 16.45 over 81 first grade games for Freeling and his best season statistically came in 2013/14, taking an incredible 29 wickets at 8.97 with the rock (alongside 448 runs at 37.33).
Parish has been a reliable and consistent run scorer, with notable season tallies of 472 runs at 47.20 (2008/09), 530 runs at 48.18 (2011/12), 482 runs at 37.08 (2012/13), 448 runs at 37.33 (2013/14), 472 runs at 39.33) and 262 runs at 32.75 (alongside 11 wickets at 16.36) in the current 2015/16 season.
Courtesy of his club exploits, he has been a prominent member of the SA Country Outbacks, playing over 30 matches where again he has starred.
Parish will move to Truro this summer who narrowly missed out on securing top spot last season in the Cornwall Cricket League's Premier Division.
An interesting finish to the A1R minor round with Centrals snatching top spot, with the final order going down to the last ball of the Eudunda/Light Pass game.
Set 153 off 18 in the second innings it came down to 7 off 2 balls to win on second innings, but Light Pass ended up only getting six, meaning that at the completion of the game both sides had scored 266 runs. Light Pass finished the second innings 7/153. Had they finished the second innings 10/153 the second innings would have been tied (instead of drawn), and 5 points awarded (I think). But because a tie can only occur when a side is bowled out in the fourth innings of the game, its not a tie and no innings points are awarded.
Its quite an interesting quirk of system, that I'd never seen before or heard of.
TimmiesChin wrote:An interesting finish to the A1R minor round with Centrals snatching top spot, with the final order going down to the last ball of the Eudunda/Light Pass game.
Set 153 off 18 in the second innings it came down to 7 off 2 balls to win on second innings, but Light Pass ended up only getting six, meaning that at the completion of the game both sides had scored 266 runs. Light Pass finished the second innings 7/153. Had they finished the second innings 10/153 the second innings would have been tied (instead of drawn), and 5 points awarded (I think). But because a tie can only occur when a side is bowled out in the fourth innings of the game, its not a tie and no innings points are awarded.
Its quite an interesting quirk of system, that I'd never seen before or heard of.
TimmiesChin wrote:An interesting finish to the A1R minor round with Centrals snatching top spot, with the final order going down to the last ball of the Eudunda/Light Pass game.
Set 153 off 18 in the second innings it came down to 7 off 2 balls to win on second innings, but Light Pass ended up only getting six, meaning that at the completion of the game both sides had scored 266 runs. Light Pass finished the second innings 7/153. Had they finished the second innings 10/153 the second innings would have been tied (instead of drawn), and 5 points awarded (I think). But because a tie can only occur when a side is bowled out in the fourth innings of the game, its not a tie and no innings points are awarded.
Its quite an interesting quirk of system, that I'd never seen before or heard of.
That is ridiculous.
As a follow up the SACA/B&L Exec have apparently ruled on the result and deemed the second innings a tie (under the rules of cricket definition of completion of innings among other things).
TimmiesChin wrote:An interesting finish to the A1R minor round with Centrals snatching top spot, with the final order going down to the last ball of the Eudunda/Light Pass game.
Set 153 off 18 in the second innings it came down to 7 off 2 balls to win on second innings, but Light Pass ended up only getting six, meaning that at the completion of the game both sides had scored 266 runs. Light Pass finished the second innings 7/153. Had they finished the second innings 10/153 the second innings would have been tied (instead of drawn), and 5 points awarded (I think). But because a tie can only occur when a side is bowled out in the fourth innings of the game, its not a tie and no innings points are awarded.
Its quite an interesting quirk of system, that I'd never seen before or heard of.
That is ridiculous.
As a follow up the SACA/B&L Exec have apparently ruled on the result and deemed the second innings a tie (under the rules of cricket definition of completion of innings among other things).
Have I missed something? Correct me if I'm wrong but LP did not get the required amount of runs to win outright - Eudunda did not get the required a amount of wickets to win outright - the scores were the same at the conclusion of a 2 day match. Result should be a draw - not a tie.
A tie can only be achieved if the side chasing the runs is bowled out with the scores level. No arguments.
A tie can only be achieved in the above scenario OR if it is a limited overs game according to the laws of cricket. So how has the BL exec come up with the awarding on bonus points?? Who (or did they) consult at the SACA in regards to the decision??
GC are well within their rights to protest about this and should do so.
Imagine the "uproar" of this had happened to a Barossa side in the same circumstances??
For what it is worth I think this weeks games will be extremely close encounters.
Angaston seem to know how to beat Kapunda but I have a feeling Kapunda might be the winners in this game. Sandy Creek and Freeling game is a hard one to pick. Freeling certainly have Sandy's measure and looking at results 3 weeks ago nearly beat Sandy Outright hard to go past them. If Denier fires for sandy than the result could be different.
TimmiesChin wrote:An interesting finish to the A1R minor round with Centrals snatching top spot, with the final order going down to the last ball of the Eudunda/Light Pass game.
Set 153 off 18 in the second innings it came down to 7 off 2 balls to win on second innings, but Light Pass ended up only getting six, meaning that at the completion of the game both sides had scored 266 runs. Light Pass finished the second innings 7/153. Had they finished the second innings 10/153 the second innings would have been tied (instead of drawn), and 5 points awarded (I think). But because a tie can only occur when a side is bowled out in the fourth innings of the game, its not a tie and no innings points are awarded.
Its quite an interesting quirk of system, that I'd never seen before or heard of.
That is ridiculous.
As a follow up the SACA/B&L Exec have apparently ruled on the result and deemed the second innings a tie (under the rules of cricket definition of completion of innings among other things).
Have I missed something? Correct me if I'm wrong but LP did not get the required amount of runs to win outright - Eudunda did not get the required a amount of wickets to win outright - the scores were the same at the conclusion of a 2 day match. Result should be a draw - not a tie.
A tie can only be achieved if the side chasing the runs is bowled out with the scores level. No arguments.
A tie can only be achieved in the above scenario OR if it is a limited overs game according to the laws of cricket. So how has the BL exec come up with the awarding on bonus points?? Who (or did they) consult at the SACA in regards to the decision??
GC are well within their rights to protest about this and should do so.
Imagine the "uproar" of this had happened to a Barossa side in the same circumstances??
Gotta admit, I was surprised by the decision. I would be interested on where the ruling came from.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Its quite an interesting quirk of system, that I'd never seen before or heard of.[/quote] That is ridiculous.[/quote]
As a follow up the SACA/B&L Exec have apparently ruled on the result and deemed the second innings a tie (under the rules of cricket definition of completion of innings among other things).[/quote]
Have I missed something? Correct me if I'm wrong but LP did not get the required amount of runs to win outright - Eudunda did not get the required a amount of wickets to win outright - the scores were the same at the conclusion of a 2 day match. Result should be a draw - not a tie.
A tie can only be achieved if the side chasing the runs is bowled out with the scores level. No arguments.
A tie can only be achieved in the above scenario OR if it is a limited overs game according to the laws of cricket. So how has the BL exec come up with the awarding on bonus points?? Who (or did they) consult at the SACA in regards to the decision??
GC are well within their rights to protest about this and should do so.
Imagine the "uproar" of this had happened to a Barossa side in the same circumstances??[/quote]
Gotta admit, I was surprised by the decision. I would be interested on where the ruling came from.[/quote] Simple, one club is turf, the other hard wicket.
Rabish Binney wrote: Have I missed something? Correct me if I'm wrong but LP did not get the required amount of runs to win outright - Eudunda did not get the required a amount of wickets to win outright - the scores were the same at the conclusion of a 2 day match. Result should be a draw - not a tie.
A tie can only be achieved if the side chasing the runs is bowled out with the scores level. No arguments.
A tie can only be achieved in the above scenario OR if it is a limited overs game according to the laws of cricket. So how has the BL exec come up with the awarding on bonus points?? Who (or did they) consult at the SACA in regards to the decision??
GC are well within their rights to protest about this and should do so.
Imagine the "uproar" of this had happened to a Barossa side in the same circumstances??
Cricket distinguishes between a tie and a draw, which are two possible results of a game: A TIE is the identical result that occurs when each team has scored the same total number of runs after their allotted innings, ALL INNINGS BEING COMPLETED. This is very rare in Test cricket and has happened only twice in its long history, but they are slightly more commonplace in first-class and limited-overs matches. A DRAW is the inconclusive result that occurs when the allotted playing time for the game expires WITHOUT THE TEAMS HAVING COMPLETED THEIR INNINGS. This is relatively common, occurring in 20-30% of Test matches with a perhaps higher percentage of first-class matches as they are scheduled for four days instead of five. Limited-overs matches cannot be drawn, although they can end with a no result if abandoned because of weather or other factors.
Cricket distinguishes between a tie and a draw, which are two possible results of a game: A TIE is the identical result that occurs when each team has scored the same total number of runs after their allotted innings, ALL INNINGS BEING COMPLETED. This is very rare in Test cricket and has happened only twice in its long history, but they are slightly more commonplace in first-class and limited-overs matches. A DRAW is the inconclusive result that occurs when the allotted playing time for the game expires WITHOUT THE TEAMS HAVING COMPLETED THEIR INNINGS. This is relatively common, occurring in 20-30% of Test matches with a perhaps higher percentage of first-class matches as they are scheduled for four days instead of five. Limited-overs matches cannot be drawn, although they can end with a no result if abandoned because of weather or other factors.
This makes sense to me
If they made 1 less run it would be a draw not a loss on second innings, so I would think it would be a draw now.
