cricket
Latest News:


WELCOME TO THE MIDDLESEX ROOM, THE ONLY MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET DEDICATED TO MIDDLESEX CCC

Winning catch. More of the same at Taunton, please!

 

Goto Page: Previous123456Next
Current Page: 2 of 6
 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
dingy bags (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 21:47
Exactly so - and we should have been stronger in our appeal. Can't help thinking that we were convinced we would not get relegated, so gave up.

Complacency all season.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 22:13
On Twitter, Kevin Hand keeps on saying that Middlesex acted with dignity by keeping their cards close to their chest over the last few weeks, and that the fact the situation has dragged on is the fault of ECB rather than the club. This is mainly in response to him receiving messages saying the club had been complacent and/or took too long to deal with the situation.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
Scrumper (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 23:46
Yes, Middlesex have acted impeccably on all fronts.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
Chris Thomas (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 00:00
An unprecedented situation at the Oval has thrown the ECB. They clearly do not have much confidence in the way they have dealt with it, and are now having to tread incredibly carefully. The fact that it has ended up relegating us is a nightmare for them.

I disagree with those people who say we should simply accept relegation. It is true, we had a poor season, yet we secured enough points on the pitch to survive. But for Arrowgate, Somerset got less points than us. If there is any chance of the ECB reversing their decision on the points deduction, we must continue to fight for it.

And, judging by Somerset's heavy handed statement today, it seems there is a reasonable chance of that decision being reversed. Somerset seem to be genuinely worried. Having said that, I am not clear what case they could possibly have. The issue of the points deduction is a matter between Middlesex and the ECB. It is not for a third party to dictate or influence the outcome. That is unethical. The arrogance of the claim that they would have scored 300 if they had needed to. Cricket doesn't automatically pan out the way we want it to, especially on a raked pitch!

It is possible that Somerset's ratcheting up of the tension - in comparison to the measured and cooperative tone taken by Middlesex - may backfire if it gets the back up of the ECB. An interesting few days in store.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
BarmierKev (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 00:06
The ECB have handled this situation appallingly to allow us all to be in this position. I wonder how whoever struck that arrow that could have killed somebody on a cricket field feels about this on all levels?



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
Grizzzly (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 04:46
Interesting debate.

Well, it was until I read CT's 00.00 post:

"In comparison to the measured and cooperative tone taken by Middlesex"

Are you having a laugh ?

Angus Fraser has been thundering around like a Trump in a China shop for the last three weeks. How on earth does that represent "measured & cooperative" ?

Grizzzly

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
Chris Thomas (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 07:49
Measured and cooperative with the ECB. We have dealt impeccably with them. Not so towards Somerset, granted, but why would you when they rake a cricket pitch?!

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 07:58
"I disagree with those people who say we should simply accept relegation. It is true, we had a poor season, yet we secured enough points on the pitch to survive. But for Arrowgate, Somerset got less points than us. If there is any chance of the ECB reversing their decision on the points deduction, we must continue to fight for it."

The bottom line is here that Middx, Somerset and Yorkshire all have significant reasons to feel very unhappy with their overall performance levels in CC1 last season. Hants were poor, too, but then I think they would be expected to be poor, so not sure they'd be that unhappy.

But, anyway, here were four sides all of whom played poorly for large parts of the season, any one of which could have accompanied a pitiful Warks side into CC2.

So, as a Somerset fan I don't really understand the notion that 'We were poor so we deserved to go,' because the same could be said of all of the teams around you, albeit that, in Somerset's case, we picked up at the end after a nightmare first half of the season, whereas Middx and Yorks seemed to bomb after less unpromising starts.

The ECB have made a complete and total horlicks of this. However, I'm not at all sure that Middx would have any real chance of winning an appeal to a court, should the ECB refuse to re-instate the two points. However, I suspect that the fact that the ECB have agreed to hear this appeal implies that at least one ECB lawyer has told them that Middx might beat them in court.

I'm very confident that Somerset's threatened legal action (in the event of the ECB deciding to try to relegate us) would have a very strong chance of success, given that the ECB's own rules state, quite clearly, than any appeal (viz arrowgate or anything else) must have been heard and resolved before the next round of CC matches gets under way and that it is a fundamental principle that a team should know what result it needs to obtain, relative to its rivals.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 08:03
The law is unemotional, and doesn't allow its decisions to be influenced by threats.

The only thing that counts is 'Did the umpires promise Middlesex wouldn't be deducted points?' And, of they did, is that legally binding?

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 08:03
"The arrogance of the claim that they would have scored 300 if they had needed to. Cricket doesn't automatically pan out the way we want it to, especially on a raked pitch!"

Lee Cooper's statement was inaccurate anyway.

The situation was that SCCC would have needed one more batting point (an extra 14 runs) to get to 250 and to win the match (as SCCC would then have stayed up based on the tie-breaker of having won more matches).

Whilst not inevitable, it's far from inconceivable that SCCC would have chiseled out an extra 14 runs if we knew we needed them. As it was, knowing that the forecast was a little questionable, SCCC took a really slapdash approach to the second half of that first innings - trying to just add some quickly as we wanted to bowl whilst the track still had some pace in it. Obviously, taking a different approach would have taken more time but, as it transpired, SCCC were not short of time at the backend of the match in the end.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 08:06
Chunky - the umpires had no authority to make such a promise UNLESS it related to the fact (if this was a fact?) that Middx were deemed to only be behind the over-rate, at the time of the interruption, due to factors outside their control.

If what the umpires meant was 'We don't think it would be fair to deduct the points because you didn't get the chance to declare and bowl"?

I'm afraid they have no authority to make that call - that's a call for the ECB and the ECB needed to follow its own rules.

If what the umpires meant was that they were going to pretend that Middx were only behind (at the time of interruption) due to factor's outside of Middx's control (because the umpires thought it was unfair that Middx didn't get the chance to bowl) then they've really put themselves in a very poor position - one that would effectively involve cooking the books.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 13/10/2017 08:15 by AGod.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
13 October, 2017 08:13
If it did end up in court which is extremely unlikely it would not get resolved until after fixtures had been published for next season.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 08:14
"The law is unemotional, and doesn't allow its decisions to be influenced by threats.

The only thing that counts is 'Did the umpires promise Middlesex wouldn't be deducted points?' And, of they did, is that legally binding?"

So far as Somerset are concerned, this will be far from the 'only,' thing which would count, legally.

The ECB failing to follow its own rules and procedures would be very likely to invalidate any decision that it takes.... that's usually the only time that a court will intervene against a sporting body.. when it can be shown that said body ignored its own rules and procedures. And it is clear that the ECB have done so in even hearing this appeal.*

Obviously, we don't object to Middx's two points being restored or Middx staying up, provided that we also do so.

* A court would be unlikely to involve itself in speculation about whether or not Middx would have declared and made up the over-rate any more that it would about whether SCCC could have made an extra 14 runs, had they needed to do so." This is not the sort of thing that a court of law is liable to concern itself with. The following of rules and procedures? Very much the sort of thing........ just as an Industrial Tribunal may take a dim view of a company that dismissed somebody without following its own procedures e.g. those contained in a staff handbook or similar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 13/10/2017 08:22 by AGod.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 08:21
So, on balance, I can't see how we're not heading to the two divisions of nine.

Why bother to hear Middx's appeal (given that doing so contravenes the ECB's own rules) unless they want to grant Middx's appeal? Unless some ECB lawyer has told them Middx might beat them in court but that Middx's chances of successful legal action would be reduced by granting this right to a hearing? (which would mean the appeal process is a sham).

But the problem with that is that, precisely by breaking their own rules, they have left themselves wide open to legal challenge from Somerset. I can't see how the ECB would have a leg to stand on.

Which leaves? Two divisions of nine. They can claim exceptional circumstances due to the archer (although, of course, a more accurate commentary would cite exceptional incompetence by the governing body it not getting this sorted at the time).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 13/10/2017 08:23 by AGod.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
Beeamazed (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 08:59
What ever the outcome of this shambles surely the umpires,must take the
blame if "it will be sorted "is proved.
Total incompetence should result in a long rest or demotion.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
AGod (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 09:37
I think the blame has to lie, mainly, with the ECB.

The circumstances were exceptional and it's not hard to understand that it must have been tough to think straight in the immediate aftermath.

But, in the cool light of day, the next day, once we knew there was no terror attack etc - what's the ECB's excuse for not sorting this out there and then?

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
hdo (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 10:16
Quote:
Beeamazed
What ever the outcome of this shambles surely the umpires,must take the
blame if "it will be sorted "is proved.
Total incompetence should result in a long rest or demotion.

Some of the LBW decisions during that match should result in a long rest or demotion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 13/10/2017 10:18 by hdo.

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
13 October, 2017 11:33
Quote:
middleman
What a total mess? Blame on the ECB and Middlesex for not sorting this out at the time or before the commencement of the next round of matches. Or maybe the umpires have actually blundered here.
The rule on over rate penalties by implication actually covers the situation:
The rule under 16.4 states:

"Any suspension of play for an injury to a player or for any
other reason beyond the control of the players shall be
a deductible allowance. The Umpire at the bowler’s end
will inform the fielding Captain, the batsman and his
fellow Umpire of any time allowances as and when they
arise and the scorers at the earliest opportunity. (This
matter will not be subject to retrospective negotiation)"

Play was stopped for a reason beyond the control of the players. Now the rule clumsily only accounts for a team that is actually batting but any court would imply that where a team is prevented from batting a second time for a reason beyond their control and therefore able to make up the over rate that the umpire should apply the deductible allowance principle in such a case to that team. What that deductible allowance should be is a moot point. However what should have happened here is that the umpires when consulting the rule book as to what they should do in the situation should have sought advice before signing off on the scorecard and thus the implication of the over rate.

In my view this is a mistake by the umpires. The umpire's decision is final in matters of play but not in matters where they are applying a disciplinary penalty which this really is. Throughout the rules where discipinary rules apply such as player penalties there is a clear right of appeal.

Ultimately any right of appeal usually comes with a time limit. Usually something like 14 or 21 days but here it could be said before the start of the final round of county matches because of the impact of the any points restoration on those matches.

Hi Middleman - although in my opinion Middlesex shouldn't have had points docked, I don't (fully) agree with your interpretation there.

Rule 16.4 is effectively saying if you don't bowl an average of 16 overs an overs, you won't be penalised if there has been an appropriate delay beyond your control. Besides minor hold ups like idiots walking in front of the sightscreen, that is very much allowing for injuries (as expressly stated) and bad weather which is clearly ''beyond the control of the players''. It should also cover any stoppage due to an arrow being fired onto the pitch and we can probably all excuse any direct reference to that in the rules!

I feel it's important to note though that 16.4 is only covering the position to the time of the suspension or stoppage. I believe all (sorry if that's wrong) accept your points would have been fairly deducted if, rather than an arrow, the match had been abandoned due to rain. However, your interpretation of the rule and reliance on ''beyond the control of the players'' (which rain clearly is) appears to make the case for ''a deductible allowance'' even in the event of an early abandonment due to bad weather. That cannot be right and is why I do not go along with it.

That quibble about the wording and interpretation of a sub-rule aside, we are in agreement concerning the bigger issues. As you say, the whole matter is ''a total mess''. Given the unique nature of the abandonment, it was crying out for the umpires and ECB to review matters promptly (the very next day if at all possible) and apply some discretion and common sense. That didn't happen which was unfair on Middlesex. (I'll leave alone here the question as to whether Middlesex should have appealed sooner and more vigorously - that was exhausted on Part 1.) Arising from the deduction, Somerset went into their final match believing what they had to achieve in order to avoid relegation. If that belief was wrong, that was unfair on Somerset.

The Fulton Fudge to keep both our teams up and return to 9 teams in Division One has some merit in light of the messed up situation. However, I'm not convinced that the ECB will be keen to do the latter. The mess now has the potential to be made even bigger by keeping us both up but denying Notts, runners up in Division Two, a promotion place. The ECB wouldn't do that though, would they?

P&C

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
BeefyRoberts (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 13:37
[www.cricketnetwork.co.uk]

Interesting views from the Grockles/Somerset version of our website.
I'm sure they,and our mods wont mind us sharing points..if you do,i apologise for putting link up!

 
Re: Arrowgate part 2
Chris Thomas (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 17:15
I have to say I think it is unlikely we will revert to two divisions of nine, for the following reasons:

1. They would then have to revert to 16 CC games per summer, which they decided only a couple of years ago was too many;
2. It would break the rules! Some people argue ECB broke the rules in giving Middlesex a hearing. Well, the rules also state there will be two up, two down;
3. It would be obvious to everyone that it placates the counties involved, thereby having the appearance of a stitch up and losing the ECB yet more credibility.

Like many, two divisions of nine is my preferred outcome for a number of good cricketing reasons. Yet, at the same time, I think it won’t happen.

Goto Page: Previous123456Next
Current Page: 2 of 6

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?