General Chat 12/13

Araldite

New Member
LM, I think you're showing a distinct lack of BELIEF.
Remember above all else "BELIEFS will keep your club strong and carry the association forward..."
 
Araldite, I have no idea what you are on about. I'm showing a distinct lack of belief in what exactly? I simply asked if other clubs had received an AGM agenda in case for some reason it had gone out and we hadn't received it.

As for my club, we are fine - I'd concentrate on yours.
 

Barrell

Member
We did receive it about a week and a half ago. There are constitutional changes but they are minor and not really worrying about as far as i'm concerned.
 
Whats everyone think of the proposed rule changes put forward by the clubs? I can tell you my club put forward the first three and already the VT have NOT recommended them - typical! I'm happy to explain the rational behind the proposals if anyone would like to ask.
 

zyxwvu

Member
Whats everyone think of the proposed rule changes put forward by the clubs? I can tell you my club put forward the first three and already the VT have NOT recommended them - typical! I'm happy to explain the rational behind the proposals if anyone would like to ask.
What are the proposals?
 
What are the proposals?

VTCA comments are in italic
Forfeits
Any club who forfeits their 2nd XI and whose 1st XI is fixtured to play at their home ground will automatically have their 1st XI relocated to the opposition 1st XI ground (if not for all 1st XI's then at the very least for Senior Division).
Not recommended due to timing and balanced fixturing issues– Fixture Variation Policy exits – Penalties for Forfeits are provided for in the current Rules
Player Qualifications
Players who play in teams where their clubs lower XI's are affiliated with other associations, shall be deemed to have played in a lower XI for the purpose of finals qualifications.
Not Recommended – Not current VTCA Policy – case for dispensation can be put the Board.
Under 17's
Players who play in the VTCA Under 17 competition and are registered with the club for which that Under 17 team competes, shall be deemed to have played in a lower XI for the purposes of finals qualification.
Not recommended if playing for another Club in the afternoon during the Season – would need a clearance
Leg Side Wides
All deliveries in one day games that are bowled down leg side are deemed to be "wides". There should be no tollerance for leg side deliveries in one day games and they should certainly not be called "no balls."
Change from No Ball to Wide has been adopted and is included in VTCA new Rules.
Recommends two delivery Rule remains.
Player Permits
The permit rules as they are written are too confusing. Each rule should end with "or" so that club administrators know only one of the three rules need apply. In affect, any player who falls into any one of the below categories should require a permit:
Any player that falls into any of one the below categories, requires a permit approved by the VTCA Secretary in writing before being eligible to play in the VTCA:
(i) a player who has permeant Australian residence playing in an outside competition, either in Australia or overseas. that embraced any part of the period from April 1 to September 30 in the current year, unless he is returning to the VTCA Club that he played with in the immediate preceding season; OR
(ii) a player who does not have permeant Australian residency, regardless of whether he is returning to the VTCA competition i.e.: all overseas non Australian residents require permits; OR
(iii) a previous permitted player returning after not more than one seasons absence unless he falls in the category (ii)
Further;
No player is considered permitted unless:
(i) his new club has been emailed by the VTCA Secretary; AND
(ii) approval has been posted on the VTCA website
Prepared to add if makes it clearer – Rules have been reformatted in new book layout.
Clearances
Clearances after the 31st December should be allowed for players who will not play First X1 cricket in the current Season.
Open to thoughts from Clubs.
 
Can you clarify the U17 one? So Clayton last year had basically a DDCA rep team who play for DDCA teams on Saturday arvo. Are they then qualified? Or are you saying any Bentleigh U17 players representing Bentleigh U17s ?
 

Qball

Member
The clearance one looks ok. Shouldn't penalise lower xi players from having a hit if living work locations change, forcing them to move clubs
 
Can you clarify the U17 one? So Clayton last year had basically a DDCA rep team who play for DDCA teams on Saturday arvo. Are they then qualified? Or are you saying any Bentleigh U17 players representing Bentleigh U17s ?
Ok, so what we are suggesting is that if you have an Under 17 team that is made up of players from your club and that are registered at your club (not transferred in just to help out), then those players should be deemed qualified to play finals in a higher XI. This was suggested as we had a number of Under 17 players (all homegrown) whom we would have liked to be eligible for selection for finals, however they were deemed not to have played enough games given that the Under 17 team is not recognised by the VTCA because they allow outside players. I understand that in order for the Under 17 comp to have survived last season, players from outside comps were called in, but what we are suggesting is that players who are truly homegrown and who are registered by your club to play with your club, should be eligible.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
VTCA comments are in italic
Forfeits
Any club who forfeits their 2nd XI and whose 1st XI is fixtured to play at their home ground will automatically have their 1st XI relocated to the opposition 1st XI ground (if not for all 1st XI's then at the very least for Senior Division).
Not recommended due to timing and balanced fixturing issues– Fixture Variation Policy exits – Penalties for Forfeits are provided for in the current Rules
Player Qualifications
Players who play in teams where their clubs lower XI's are affiliated with other associations, shall be deemed to have played in a lower XI for the purpose of finals qualifications.
Not Recommended – Not current VTCA Policy – case for dispensation can be put the Board.
Under 17's
Players who play in the VTCA Under 17 competition and are registered with the club for which that Under 17 team competes, shall be deemed to have played in a lower XI for the purposes of finals qualification.
Not recommended if playing for another Club in the afternoon during the Season – would need a clearance
Leg Side Wides
All deliveries in one day games that are bowled down leg side are deemed to be "wides". There should be no tollerance for leg side deliveries in one day games and they should certainly not be called "no balls."
Change from No Ball to Wide has been adopted and is included in VTCA new Rules.
Recommends two delivery Rule remains.
Player Permits
The permit rules as they are written are too confusing. Each rule should end with "or" so that club administrators know only one of the three rules need apply. In affect, any player who falls into any one of the below categories should require a permit:
Any player that falls into any of one the below categories, requires a permit approved by the VTCA Secretary in writing before being eligible to play in the VTCA:
(i) a player who has permeant Australian residence playing in an outside competition, either in Australia or overseas. that embraced any part of the period from April 1 to September 30 in the current year, unless he is returning to the VTCA Club that he played with in the immediate preceding season; OR
(ii) a player who does not have permeant Australian residency, regardless of whether he is returning to the VTCA competition i.e.: all overseas non Australian residents require permits; OR
(iii) a previous permitted player returning after not more than one seasons absence unless he falls in the category (ii)
Further;
No player is considered permitted unless:
(i) his new club has been emailed by the VTCA Secretary; AND
(ii) approval has been posted on the VTCA website
Prepared to add if makes it clearer – Rules have been reformatted in new book layout.
Clearances
Clearances after the 31st December should be allowed for players who will not play First X1 cricket in the current Season.
Open to thoughts from Clubs.
Anything about Silicon on bats???
 
VTCA comments are in italic
Forfeits
Any club who forfeits their 2nd XI and whose 1st XI is fixtured to play at their home ground will automatically have their 1st XI relocated to the opposition 1st XI ground (if not for all 1st XI's then at the very least for Senior Division).
Not recommended due to timing and balanced fixturing issues– Fixture Variation Policy exits – Penalties for Forfeits are provided for in the current Rules
AKA the APW rule? but agree, not the best look having a senior div team forfeit their 2nd XI. maybe clubs who do this should have their position in that grade for next season questioned?
 
AKA the APW rule? but agree, not the best look having a senior div team forfeit their 2nd XI. maybe clubs who do this should have their position in that grade for next season questioned?
Exactly Crick. We had a function booked at our club only to have no game being played because a Senior 2nd XI forfeited. We felt that at the very least, then the 1st XI game should be refixtured to our home ground. I don't buy the VTCA excuse in the proposal that its not recommended due to timing and balanced fixturing issues. If a club forfiets their 2nd XI, then they should be on notice that their 1st XI will be relocated (if applicable). It's only one team that is inconveianced by having to drive to another ground and becuase its that club that forfiets, then common sense should say that that club is inconviencanced.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
The clearance one looks ok. Shouldn't penalise lower xi players from having a hit if living work locations change, forcing them to move clubs
That makes perfect sense – the fact you would stop somebody playing a game of cricket, solely because they got their clearance in after December 31st is ridiculous. We should be encouraging people to play cricket, not putting barriers up
 
Really dissapointed to hear that one of the most professional umpires and an all round good guy has decided to leave the VTCA and go to subbies. A really big loss to the comp. What's worse is the reason why, which I won't post, other than to say it would appear that clubs are not the only ones that the VT don't listen to.
 

DStrek15

Active Member
wouldnt be the great g.hill would it? probably couldnt bring himself to calling legside wides no balls anymore.. All the best to him deserves to umpire a better standard.
 

rugmop

Member
wouldnt be the great g.hill would it? probably couldnt bring himself to calling legside wides no balls anymore.. All the best to him deserves to umpire a better standard.
I used to umpire in the VTCA, and now do so in a comp. in Gippsland. Re: the leg side wides - Are they instituting this rule to prepare players so they can comfortably play one-day cricket for Australia? If so, they are catering for a most unlikely event.

If they are doing it to deter defensive bowling, why are they not also cracking down on off-side balls of excessive width? This rule came in about eight years ago in the comp in which I now umpire. To see 17 and 18 year-olds have their confidence destroyed in the space of a couple of overs, due to an inability to exercise precise control, I found made me angry and dispirited. I have seen careers destroyed thus and the last thing we need is to drive youngsters away from the game. FFS, had it not been allowed to bowl outside the leg stump when I played, my batting average would have been even more minuscule than it actually was.

The ostensible reason given for the implementation of this rule in our comp., was because it took the pressure off umpires, by making the decision clear-cut and obvious to all. No such benefit has accrued here, due to uncertainties about whether a wide should be called if the batsman changes his position (moves towards the off side) upon the bowling of the ball, causing the delivery pass over leg stump, but to the leg side of his/her body. It's a similar scenario to the implementation of the DRS in Test cricket, which was also meant to decrease the level of controversy about umpires' decisions. Hasn't that worked a treat? Also, to call it a 'system' is a calculated insult to the intelligence. This DRS has had an added benefit in 'junior' competitions, whereby an umpire's decision is now seen merely as the opening sally in a series of bad-tempered negotiations.

There already exists a process to deal with excessively negative tactics. It's on the first page of most cricket rule books. It's usually headed something like, "The Spirit of Cricket". If a few offending teams (all players) were forced to front a tribunal on a few Tuesday nights, any such problem would cease. However, that might require an ability to think, and a determination to make that commitment to the spirit of cricket something other than vacuous gum-flapping.
 
To see 17 and 18 year-olds have their confidence destroyed in the space of a couple of overs, due to an inability to exercise precise control, I found made me angry and dispirited. I have seen careers destroyed thus and the last thing we need is to drive youngsters away from the game. FFS, had it not been allowed to bowl outside the leg stump when I played, my batting average would have been even more minuscule than it actually was.

.
Bowler who bowls more then 2 balls down leg side per over doesnt have much of a bowling career to bigin with.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
Saw the draft (hopefully) fixture for south seconds. 9 teams, 11 rounds. Two teams have 2 byes - I wouldn't be happy if I was Clayton who were pencilled in to miss 4 days of cricket out of 21!!! And I'm tipping it wouldn't align with the south division who all probably have 8 teams. If this is fair dinkum, hopefully it is the beginning of the end for seconds divisions
 
Saw the draft (hopefully) fixture for south seconds. 9 teams, 11 rounds. Two teams have 2 byes - I wouldn't be happy if I was Clayton who were pencilled in to miss 4 days of cricket out of 21!!! And I'm tipping it wouldn't align with the south division who all probably have 8 teams. If this is fair dinkum, hopefully it is the beginning of the end for seconds divisions
They were on My Cricket but have since been pulled down.
 
Top