Rules Changes - Dvca

[CowCorner]

OK, its nearly that time of year when your Club will receive notice that they can present (with a seconded Club) rule chane proposals to be voted for by Clubs at the AGM.

I feel that there are Clubs out there that possibly do not seek full representation of their players and either dismiss making a submission or do not assist other Clubs by dismissing seconding and supporting their submissions.

So, what rules changes do you all think needs to be made to the DVCA? Every year there is around 40 which is WAY to many but that does not mean there are ones that need to be fixed.

I will start:

Grand Finals - As we all know there was an administrative error last year when the rule change went in and we were stuck with the anomaly this year. Obviously it has to be changed.

Semi Finals - If we change the GF to 80 over two Sat then why on earth do we have SF Sat/Sun. We changed the GF due to the fact that it aligned to the rest of the season but we disregard the SF?

End of Innings 1st team to bat - OK, this is one of my ones. Why should we reward a team who has failed to bat their overs by allowing them a few late overs at the openers. What I mean is three overs to go, you send out your openers and they are on a hiding to nothing. I have spoken to a few people and received mixed opinions. My suggestion that if you bowl a side out and there in THREE OR LESS overs in the day (77 or 65) then you, as a Captain can elect not to have them, this does not mean you get them next week, you still get your 80 what it means you decide to forgo them and wait until next week. Thoughts?

I am sure there are more opinions out there, trial them on here, if you feel passionate about rules and the DVCA then please speak to your executive and ensure your ideas are floated.

 

[Bubble Wrap]

We put up the one regarding having the option not to bat at the end of Day 1 a year or two ago and it got knocked back - don't know if it was a close vote or not... I think we went with 10 overs though (ie. you roll a team within the last 10 overs of the day, and you have the option not to bat).

Maybe three overs instead of 10 would make it more likely to get up this time around...

 

[Tongs]

We put up the one regarding having the option not to bat at the end of Day 1 a year or two ago and it got knocked back - don't know if it was a close vote or not... I think we went with 10 overs though (ie. you roll a team within the last 10 overs of the day, and you have the option not to bat).

Maybe three overs instead of 10 would make it more likely to get up this time around...

3 seems an odd number. possibly 5 or 10? To be honest, I don't agree with that rule. I like the drama and game that it makes. I would keep it as is, but it is stupid that teams bat for 1 over. You should still lose 3 overs (in the day) for a change of innings.

The change of rules is laughable each year. We change way to many things each year, its like Kevin Bartlett is running the DVCA. What some clubs come up with borders on stupidity and never get up.

Agree with CC about the finals rostering, it doesn't overly make sense. and should be consistant across the 2 games.

 

[harry2bob]

We put up the one regarding having the option not to bat at the end of Day 1 a year or two ago and it got knocked back - don't know if it was a close vote or not... I think we went with 10 overs though (ie. you roll a team within the last 10 overs of the day, and you have the option not to bat).

Maybe three overs instead of 10 would make it more likely to get up this time around...

seems a tad silly, its one of those 'thats cricket' things, its the benefits of winning the toss. it would stop the slog in the last few overs to some degree also, as if 9,10,11 gets out, the days over, the way it is now these guys slog to score quick and have a bowl for a few overs.

what would happen if a side declared after 75 overs, they forfeit the 5 overs??
keep it simple, 80 overs in day. whatever happens.

the last 10 overs of days play when a change of innings has occurred is always a good challenge, good spectacle, good learning experience for youngsters.

silly proposal IMO

 

[Ex Prez]

We put up the one regarding having the option not to bat at the end of Day 1 a year or two ago and it got knocked back - don't know if it was a close vote or not... I think we went with 10 overs though (ie. you roll a team within the last 10 overs of the day, and you have the option not to bat).

Maybe three overs instead of 10 would make it more likely to get up this time around...

Many years ago... I am sure they had the rule where a team could not declare in the last half hour / 20 mins of the day...
Re-instate that AND the 3 over chnageover rule, and most of this issue goes away...
Yes sometimes teams will have to bat an over or 3, but so to do test teams...just one of the quirks of the game.

Agree to change GF back to Sat/Sat. Sick of winning flags on the Sunday and having to work monday
The semi is more difficult to change. Would require an extra weekend to be played in the schedule somewhere... May mean we need to play 3 x one day matches during the season to give the extra week.

 

[CowCorner]

Why are we against Sat/Sun game through the season yet accept on in the SF.

 

[Ex Prez]

Why are we against Sat/Sun game through the season yet accept on in the SF.

I hate Sat/Sun - regardless of whether in November or March. Too old for that stuff. cant move on Sundays
But if we wish to kill the Sat/Sun semi, then we will need to give up a day elsewhere.

 

[Tongs]

I hate Sat/Sun - regardless of whether in November or March. Too old for that stuff. cant move on Sundays
But if we wish to kill the Sat/Sun semi, then we will need to give up a day elsewhere.

Why can't we go one week longer like many other cricket comps? That would stop the Sat/Sun semi It would interfer with DVFL(NFL) but who cares? Surely as it is not going to cut their season short we can still do it?

I also have a mate who plays for Deepdene, and in their comp (not sure when) their semi is Saturday Monday due to the long weekend. Would hate for that to be the case.

 

[brutal]

Get rid of the bowling restrictions for under age players who play senior cricket! This rule was brought in many years ago because Cricket Australia had it as a recommendation as a response to back related injuries and stress. The DVCA decided to implement it as a rule and apply it to medium pace bowlers, defined by the keeper standing back. However the rule became unworkable when keepers started standing up to there medium
Pacers to get around the rule. The DVCA then responded by applying this rule across the board covering quicks and spinners. As a result a spin bowler who plays junior cricket in the morning is penalised into bowling in 5 over spells if he plays in the afternoons. In my opinion and my clubs, this rule detrimental to the development of bowlers as it provides the bowlers with a small window of opportunity to settle into a rhythm and make an impact. In the case of spin bowlers they can fall into bowling defensively due to only having a short time frame to work in. I am not aware of competing comps having this rule and I don't believe the DVCA is compelled to enforce it. I am all for some sort of restriction at junior game level, as the participation element is important. If someone can come up with evidence that says by having the restrictions has caused a drop in back related stress injuries, then I may change my mind but I doubt it exists. In any case it is usually bad technique that causes most problems. Anyone else got thoughts?

 

[gnippe]

Clubs hosting grand finals should provide stumps, drinks and afternoon tea. Some clubs do this anyway but it's not a rule. Should be part and parcel with hosting a game and getting the financial rewards that come with it. If you aren't prepared to do it your club shouldn't be eligible to host a grand final.

 

[Tongs]

Clubs hosting grand finals should provide stumps, drinks and afternoon tea. Some clubs do this anyway but it's not a rule. Should be part and parcel with hosting a game and getting the financial rewards that come with it. If you aren't prepared to do it your club shouldn't be eligible to host a grand final.

I can't speak for other clubs, but Eltham always purchase brand new stumps for the Grand Final, and nine times out of ten the winning team buy these off us as a momentous of winning the flag. We ensure that they are brand new for not only the game but so they are great to sign and keep as a reminder. And just for the record, we don't make a profit. We also supply drinks on all days. It's not in the rules, but just a small gesture to both sides so they can focus on the game. I don't believe that that the hosting club supply afternoon tea though.

 

[CowCorner]

I can't speak for other clubs, but Eltham always purchase brand new stumps for the Grand Final, and nine times out of ten the winning team buy these off us as a momentous of winning the flag. We ensure that they are brand new for not only the game but so they are great to sign and keep as a reminder. And just for the record, we don't make a profit. We also supply drinks on all days. It's not in the rules, but just a small gesture to both sides so they can focus on the game. I don't believe that that the hosting club supply afternoon tea though.

Having been hosted by Eltham in the last two Barclay Shield Grand Finals I can confirm that they look after us very well. They purchase new stumps specifically for the GF (yeah Tongs the cheques in the mail....) supplied a carton of free beer after the game and supplied all drinks during the game.

I do agree that hosting clubs actually should do that and include afternoon tea (making it and transporting it is annoying) HOWEVER only after all clubs organise their supporters to not bring their own alcohol and food to the grounds...hosting clubs deserve the right to make a bit of coin for the effort they put in.

 

[Duck magnet]

Grand Finals - As we all know there was an administrative error last year when the rule change went in and we were stuck with the anomaly this year. Obviously it has to be changed.

We had someone make a suggestion at our GF. If the losing club after the first sat/sun wants to come back for the second week then the requesting club should pay for the umpires.

We were in a strong position and would have expected a concede. We had to wait until the following week to play 1.5 hours for them to then concede. Might not have been as attractive for them if all cost were put on them.

 

[Tongs]

Having been hosted by Eltham in the last two Barclay Shield Grand Finals I can confirm that they look after us very well. They purchase new stumps specifically for the GF (yeah Tongs the cheques in the mail....) supplied a carton of free beer after the game and supplied all drinks during the game.

I do agree that hosting clubs actually should do that and include afternoon tea (making it and transporting it is annoying) HOWEVER only after all clubs organise their supporters to not bring their own alcohol and food to the grounds...hosting clubs deserve the right to make a bit of coin for the effort they put in.

I look forward to the cheque arriving, we agreed the stumps were $100 each yeah? Glad that you boys enjoyed the hospitality at ECC. Its not hard to look after competing clubs, and its a pleasure doing so. But there are disappointing aspects too.

Its interesting that some people believe that clubs make a killing hosting finals. I can tell you first hand that it has the potential to make money for clubs, but it is killed by the fact that clubs continue to bring their own alcohol to games. Its probably one of the worst aspects of cricket. During football season you get your car checked by security, and pay to get into the game. I'd hate to see cricket go down this path, but if people continue to bring slabs and slabs through the gates, I am not sure what else can be done.

 

[captain cuzz]

I look forward to the cheque arriving, we agreed the stumps were $100 each yeah? Glad that you boys enjoyed the hospitality at ECC. Its not hard to look after competing clubs, and its a pleasure doing so. But there are disappointing aspects too.

Its interesting that some people believe that clubs make a killing hosting finals. I can tell you first hand that it has the potential to make money for clubs, but it is killed by the fact that clubs continue to bring their own alcohol to games. Its probably one of the worst aspects of cricket. During football season you get your car checked by security, and pay to get into the game. I'd hate to see cricket go down this path, but if people continue to bring slabs and slabs through the gates, I am not sure what else can be done.

It's nothing but poor manners.

The same people that bring grog to other grounds are the first to throw their arms up when others do it to them and as a result you often get the "well, they did it first" or "other clubs do it, why can't we?" excuses.

It's a vicious circle unfotunately and unless clubs organise a day at the finals as an official event where it's clearly spelled out that we're buying any grog from the host club, not much can be done without getting in to a scenario like we have at local footy as pointed out above.

 

[Nawab of Pautadi]

Having been hosted by Eltham in the last two Barclay Shield Grand Finals I can confirm that they look after us very well. They purchase new stumps specifically for the GF (yeah Tongs the cheques in the mail....) supplied a carton of free beer after the game and supplied all drinks during the game.

I do agree that hosting clubs actually should do that and include afternoon tea (making it and transporting it is annoying) HOWEVER only after all clubs organise their supporters to not bring their own alcohol and food to the grounds...hosting clubs deserve the right to make a bit of coin for the effort they put in.

Only Clubs that can make scones, jam & cream need only reply CC

 

[CowCorner]

Only Clubs that can make scones, jam & cream need only reply CC

 

[Right Arm Trundler]

Get rid of the bowling restrictions for under age players who play senior cricket! This rule was brought in many years ago because Cricket Australia had it as a recommendation as a response to back related injuries and stress. The DVCA decided to implement it as a rule and apply it to medium pace bowlers, defined by the keeper standing back. However the rule became unworkable when keepers started standing up to there medium
Pacers to get around the rule. The DVCA then responded by applying this rule across the board covering quicks and spinners. As a result a spin bowler who plays junior cricket in the morning is penalised into bowling in 5 over spells if he plays in the afternoons. In my opinion and my clubs, this rule detrimental to the development of bowlers as it provides the bowlers with a small window of opportunity to settle into a rhythm and make an impact. In the case of spin bowlers they can fall into bowling defensively due to only having a short time frame to work in. I am not aware of competing comps having this rule and I don't believe the DVCA is compelled to enforce it. I am all for some sort of restriction at junior game level, as the participation element is important. If someone can come up with evidence that says by having the restrictions has caused a drop in back related stress injuries, then I may change my mind but I doubt it exists. In any case it is usually bad technique that causes most problems. Anyone else got thoughts?

Disagree with this suggestion, have seen some very good young cricketers both spin and fast bowlers lost to cricket because they have bowled too much as a junior. The biggest problem is they don't realise the damage they are doing at the time but a couple of years down the track, backs and shoulders are damaged beyond repair. I think the 16 overs in a day rule is suitable for under age players, suggest the possibilty of them playing on a Friday night rather than a Saturday morning may alleviate many of these issues.

 

[brutal]

Disagree with this suggestion, have seen some very good young cricketers both spin and fast bowlers lost to cricket because they have bowled too much as a junior. The biggest problem is they don't realise the damage they are doing at the time but a couple of years down the track, backs and shoulders are damaged beyond repair. I think the 16 overs in a day rule is suitable for under age players, suggest the possibilty of them playing on a Friday night rather than a Saturday morning may alleviate many of these issues.

I'm not talking about having them bowl unchanged from 1 end! The current restrictions are so inflexible that it is more detrimental to there development than any risk of injury! Has anyone seen any hard evidence that these restrictions are preventing long term injury? Some are actually suggesting the opposite and saying that the lack of conditioning at a young age is the cause of the stresses later on. All I know is that we have a young spin bowler who is considering playing in another senior comp because DVCA is the only one that has restrictions at senior level!

 

[Right Arm Trundler]

I'm not talking about having them bowl unchanged from 1 end! The current restrictions are so inflexible that it is more detrimental to there development than any risk of injury! Has anyone seen any hard evidence that these restrictions are preventing long term injury? Some are actually suggesting the opposite and saying that the lack of conditioning at a young age is the cause of the stresses later on. All I know is that we have a young spin bowler who is considering playing in another senior comp because DVCA is the only one that has restrictions at senior level!

The rule shouldn't apply to spinners l agree. I think they are starting to gather some real evidence that the number of back injuries to young bowlers is reducing, however on the flip side the number of stress fractures to feet and the lower leg are increasing. So who knows?? I thought the rule was handed down from cricket australia so every comp had to abide by it?