Common sense prevails with the game being called off at Payneham today.

Interestingly Payneham entered the scores into mycricket this afternoon as a forfeit by Pooraka.
Thankfully David Heyzer went in and changed it to a draw shortly thereafter.

Fairly poor form from Payneham to try and claim the win.

Old Scotch with a handy import this week.
Not every day a bloke plays T20 and ODIs against England then rolls out for an A1 game 3 weeks later.

If it pitches off the cut stuff it is meant to be a no-ball. Anyone calling it a wide in turf cricket is mistaken.
Are you sure?

Don't think that's right

Unless it's an ATCA creation

I thought it was a bit odd given the width of most turf pitches but wasn't going to question the merchant.

Wise man LM.

Law 21 (No ball), part 7:
21.7 - pitching off the pitch
The umpire shall call and signal No ball if a ball ... pitches wholly or partially off the pitch as defined in Law 6.1 (Area of pitch) before it reaches the line of the striker’s wicket.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-21-no-ball/

19 this year and say 12 next year, is approx. the same as 3 next year.

Crows will be hoping their pick they give up slips lower than 12 and Carlton's rises above 3.

There's not a lot in it either way for mine.

Sonofbrowny25 wrote:Harris
Finch
Uzzie
S marsh
Head
Paine
Pattinson
Cummins
Lyon
Starc
Hazelwood

When our bowlers have taken 40/40 wickets this summer, and our bats can't put on a decent partnership, why do you feel the need to drop a bat and bring in another bowler?

I was wondering how he was getting a game as the spinning all-rounder ahead of Maxwell, but then the following was pointed out to me and it all became clear:

Marnus Labuschagne

Correct, I did calculate it on a flat death rate.
Not everyone drives to get their tickets. Some people work in a shopping centre with a newsagent that sells them. Their 1 minute walk is significantly safer.

But lets assume you do drive, and that's what the above post was based on.

According to the huffington post, the average American spends 17,600 minutes per year driving. (https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/americans-spend-average-17600-minutes-driving-year/)

That means you make 1173, 15 minute trips per year. (approx. 3 per day)
Over 80 years, that's 93,688 trips.

According to Forbes, you have a 1 in 88 chance of dying in a car crash (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tombarlow/2011/05/10/the-odds-on-how-you-will-die/#6f6210e1be76)

So for 88 people, they've made 8,260,267 15 minute car trips, in which 1 has died.

As mentioned previously, your 36 game ticket has a 1in 226,252 chance of winning.

Your ticket is 36.5 times more likely to win than you dying (as a result of a car crash) in a 15 minute car ride to get your ticket.

Stanlake can go, that's a win for mine.
2/50 (4), 2/43 (4), 1/18 (4), 0/25 (2), 2/27 (4).

7/163 (18)

Given that the average score this year has been closer to 140, he's a liability.

Ponting's bake of Starc was good. Absolute stupidity from the Aussies not to review with 2 reviews left.

At least his ban is up soon, should be back next season!

Chairman of selectors Trevor Hohns is expected to reveal a bumper squad for this month’s Warne-Muralitharan Trophy, which does not begin until January 24.

Bumper Squad? What does that mean? They'll find some talent? Or they are going to post a group of 18 and wait for public reaction to work out which ones we want in our xi?

Has there ever been a time with more names floating around as possible options?

1) Harris
2) ?
3) Khawaja
4) ?
5) ?
6) ?
7) Paine
8) Cummins
9) ?
10) Lyon
11) Hazlewood

Second Opener
Finch
Renshaw
Bancroft
Burns

#4 & 5
Head
Pucovski
S Marsh
Handscomb
Wade
K Pattinson
Ferguson

All Rounder
Stoinis
Maxwell
Labuschagne
M Marsh

Bowler
Starc
Siddle
J Pattinson
Tremain
Worrall
J Richardson
Boland
Bird

That's 29 names and I wouldn't be overly surprised to see any of them to be honest. And there's probably others that could be added to the list.

HH3 wrote:How can betting on a fictional TV show be legal?

Is it any worse than betting on things like The Bachelor and Australian Survivor which are filmed months in advance and people have inside knowledge on who wins?

On what grounds are they appealing the decision? Thought the rules were pretty black and white? Good luck on that! [emoji23]

"No player, excluding Guest players (see 12 d) are qualified to play in finals, commencing with the quarter final, unless they have played at least one match prior to the quarter final." - seems pretty clear to me

If I were Fulham that is the bit I would be attacking.

Whilst it is implied it is a T20 match, it doesn't state that it is a T20 match.

Heyzer a few years ago blurred the waters when he changed the interpretation on the 2-grade clubs rule. This rule previously applied to the Saturday comp only, but David changed it and said the "senior comp" is BOTH the Saturday comp and the T20s.

It was a strange change, but one that has now opened the door for Fulham to argue that their 3 had played one match.

Personally I think they broke the rules, but there is enough gray that they can now argue it.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:On a side note, Starc will get a 5fa.

Ahem

Well if we are allowed to pump up our own tyres...

Trader wrote:Paine 45

Yep great work by Weeksy and Finnie, if that's the way you want to go, awesome! Seems the plan every year has been to ring around 10 to 15 players at the end of season from other Clubs, guys who have played 1st Grade, may be stuck in 2nd Grade looking for more opportunities, offer them the world and 1st Grade games and go from there. Easier than giving your good juniors a go and developing them I suppose.

We had all 11 players on the weekend come from our junior program and no player older than Kelvin at 24. Short term pain for long term gain. Not take the easy cop out option that Port continue to do year after year.

Worked in our favour with Bailey Hann though, offered him the world and played no games. At least Port paid his $800 subs he owed us for last two years so we would clear him, and got rid of the pushy parents who thought he should have been playing for Redbacks. Win, win there!

Weeksy may deny approaching Kamau after our 20/20 thrashing of them, but he said "that big guy over there wants to meet me this week to discuss playing for them next season" and pointing straight at him. Funny that!!

Yeah, you are right, he should've just sat on his hands and done nothing, continued to exist with no success and rolled over when the SACA forced them to merge.
Weeksy is a champion of a bloke who like most of us would, do anything to not only keep his club alive but to make it successful.

Agree, top bloke, and all Clubs need people like that who will do anything for the Club.

Just don't go around denying you have approached players, when facts are you have. That's all.

If they agree to go and Port want to dish out the coin to get it done, all fair play.

Please help me out here, as I'm totally lost.

The way I'm reading your comments is as follows:

"We aren't happy that Port Adelaide are trying to 'poach' Kamau off us, that's unfair"
But the only reason you have Kamau is because you 'poached' him off Walkerville?
So why is it ok for you guys to take him from Walkerville, but not ok for Port to try and get him? Especially when you consider he's played a full season for Walkerville but hasn't played a Saturday game for you guys?

Walkerville are happy for him to play T20 for you as that doesn't take him away from them.
Are you sure they are happy for him to leave next year to go play for you guys?

I understand you see it as providing him an opportunity to play in a better comp, which it is, equally when Port provide other clubs B-graders an opportunity to play in a better comp, ie: their A-grade, why do you no longer support that?

I might be being a smart alec, but equally you are flat out refusing to see any situation from anyone's side other than your own. "They were our b-grader, you can't have them to play a-grade!!!"
Your justifications for taking players can equally be applied at other clubs.

But getting back to Kamau, he's quickly becoming the hot girl in the bar.
Eagles2014 saw them first so Port Adelaide aren't allowed to try to pick them up!

Also, I'm not sure why you want them so badly anyway, it will mean you can no longer boast about your xi all being your own juniors.

Finally, your attitude to ATCA potentially needs a re-adjustment. Kamau has 116 runs at 12.9 and 17 wickets at 20.5, hardly setting the world on fire yet you think he's a genuine A-grader at district level.

Watts knows who filmed the incident and said it had been recorded and distributed without his consent.

“Absolutely not with my consent and of course I feel upset that someone feels the need to video something like that at a festival over in Germany and then feels the need to send it on,” he explained.

Been a few days since I watched the video, but didn't he turn to the camera and say 'are we ready?' before he snorted?
How can he claim it was recorded without consent?

After 3mm of rain over two days miraculously washed out last year's Semi Final at Linblom, while just down the road they got two full days of cricket in at para hills, I think its kind of funny that they copped a wash out this week. ;)
#karma #dontupsetthecricketgods

That said, if Goodwood didn't put the covers on, then that's fairly poor form and they rightly should lose the game.

I know a number of games without covers not only played, but started on time. I would have thought without covers Goodwood Oval would have still played, as such, I had assumed they put the covers on and that lead to another issue (ie: leaking in a concentrated spot, or excessively wet run-ups where the covers had drained to).

No worries mate. I can leave work now safe in the knowledge I helped someone today! haha

Firstly I would like to apologise in advance as this may have already been answered earlier...

When using the Tapatalk app, when looking at unread posts, the app will automatically jump the the 1st unread post of a thread when you click on the thread title, whereas when veiwing through the web browser, if you hit the thread title it takes you automatically to the very first post on the thread.

Is there a setting where I can make it jump to the first unread post of a thread?

Thanks in advance and again I apologise if this has already been answered and I'm the only schmuck who can't figure it out.

There is a red square before the title, between the red footy and the title.
It's small, but there, click that.

It's the SANFL trying to seem tough after they were so weak following last year's prelim final.

How can you fine a professional club $10,000 and then a country club $30k.

The policy of giving dividend imputation cheques for dividend recipients who are outside the tax system is one of many examples of why Howard/Costello were poor economic managers. The policy created structural deficit for every government since (and does not exist in ANY other country in the world) and will cost the taxpayer $8bil a year if it stays. $8 BILLION! It is a policy that only favours the wealthy (who have the temerity to claim they are "self-funded") and there isn't an economist worth his salt that thinks the policy is a good idea.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (quite likely), however my simple understanding based on no research is as follows:

Company makes profit and pays 30% tax.
Company then issues dividends to the shareholders, at which point it is now considered income, and is taxed personally.

To avoid double taxing, the individual only pays the difference between the 30% already paid, and their personal bracket (often 37 or 45%).

In the instance where someone is in a lower bracket (than 30% already paid by the company), the difference is then a credit to the individual.

Am I correct in assuming you are happy for the government to collect the additional from the majority who are in a higher than 30% bracket, but not willing for the credit to be returned for the individuals who are in a lower bracket?

Read the link I posted above. The proposal is to withdraw dividend imputation cheques from dividend recipients who are outside the tax system .

Ok, read the article.

Its an interesting one.
In short, they (labor) are happy to refund the company tax until such point that you are paying no tax, but not to the point that you get a cash rebate.

Why the distinction? Why should you be allowed to return it to those in the 19c bracket, but not to those in the 0c bracket?

Steve earns $100k per year in his job.
Jodi earns $25k per year part time.
Sally doesn't do anything, she gets $0.

All three also receive $5,000 in fully franked dividends (5k+2142 in franking credits).

Steve now gets a tax bill for $500, being the 7c per dollar on the dividends and franking credits for his personal tax bracket of 37c (vs company 30c).
Jodi gets a tax return of $785, because she already paid $1,292 in income tax, but her dividends and franking credits were taxed at 30c, higher than her usual 19c per dollar. Good luck to Jodi.
Sally on the other hand, as she earnt nothing, the 2142 in tax already paid by the company, remains with the ATO, because we don't want Sally's total tax bill to go below zero.

To me that's where it breaks down. Why should Jodi get a tax return, but not Sally. Both have dividends that were taxed at a higher rate than their personal tax bracket.

To me that's where it breaks down. Why should Jodi get a tax return, but not Sally. Both have dividends that were taxed at a higher rate than their personal tax bracket.

Because your last example is a tax exempt super pension.

I am asking why is that fair. Not what is her classification that means Sally doesn't get her credit but Jodi does.

They are both share holders, who's dividends have been taxed through company tax at a higher rate than their personal income tax rate, and therefore both should receive the difference back.

To put it another way. A shareholder is essential an investor who provides capital for the company to undertake its business, and receives a return as a result.

Now instead of buying 100k in shares and earning a $5k dividend plus 2k in franking credits, now lets say Sally gives them a 100k loan, with a 7% interest rate.
The company pays no tax on the 7k, and Sally declares that 7k and as she's under 18,200, she pays no tax either.

That's fair and no one is complaining about that, so why when Sally is called a shareholder, should the ATO get 2k out of it?

Yup, gotta love the live feed through mycricket on facebook. Just made my morning at work far more enjoyable.

4 pitch square will cost you roughly $80k.

Hit up ORS for half under their facilities program, there's $40k.
Then go to CCS and say you've got 50% locked in, and ask if they can go 50:50 on the other half, there's another $20k.
Then go to SACA and hit them up, they'll often throw in $10-15k.

Sell a couple of BBQs and you'll get the remaining 5-10k and you're done.

As we've seen with Harinderjit Singh, got offered $$$ to move to Ingle Farm, played the first 3 rounds, hated their lack of culture , so moved back to Para Hills..
:lol: :lol: More to do with his lack of output, lack of opportunities, that he brought his mates who weren't (at that time) in the best XI, and that we wasn't the most loved person at the club.

potayto, potahto.

his lack of output

Or perhaps just simply a spud! :D

I have no issues that a warning wasn't issued.

For mine, the issue comes from the fact that the current law says a batsman can be mankad anytime from when the ball comes into play (when the bowler enters his run up), up until such time that the ball would be expected to be bowled .

For mine, Butler was not trying to gain an unfair advantage, but rather anticipating that Ashwin should have delivered the ball. The word Expected means it doesn't matter that Ashwin stopped his action, it was reasonable for Butler to EXPECT the ball to have been released, and therefore he was allowed to have left his crease.

It's not out in my opinion.

A1 - Grand Final Preview

Looking at the likely teams, there are some interesting match ups and different styles used by the two teams.

PAOC has a weak middle order and rely on their lower order with the bat, while for Pooraka, it's all about Hanson at #4.
With the ball, PAOC rely on the openers, while Pooraka gets the work done with the change bowlers.

Batting

Top Order
PAOC : English (388 @ 32.33), Latchford (445 @ 37.08), Hurburgh (408 @ 37.09)
Pooraka : Bailey (583 @ 53), Marks (467 @ 38.92), Nuske (119 @ 9.92)

Bailey the standout here, though Nuske would be a concern for the bulls. Overall, not a lot between these top orders.

Middle
PAOC : Clayfield (238 @ 26.44), Tyler (127 @ 21.17), Griffiths (112 @ 22.4)
Pooraka : Hanson (786 @ 78.6), Pocock (227 @ 22.7), Jarrett (210 @ 23.33)

Hanson clearly gives the win to Pooraka, thought they also win at numbers 5 and 6 too. Pooraka will be confident their middle order has PAOC covered easily.

Lower
PAOC : Richardson (228 @ 22.8 ), Dent (266 @ 38), Clayfield (84 @ 28)
Pooraka : Duval (155 @ 22.14), Virgens (48 @ 8 ), Travis (97 @ 16.17)

PAOC comes back here, mainly on the back of Dent and Richardson. These old-timers have dug PAOC out of the depths many times before, and will likely need to do the same again.

Tail
Nothing to write home about, though Jack Jarrett’s average of 24.75 clearly has Burford (7.67) and Ramakrishn (9.33) covered.


Bowling

Openers
PAOC : Dent (26 @ 13.46), Clayfield (30 @ 12.03)
Pooraka : Virgens (25 @ 12.84), Travis (8 @ 22.88)

A big difference in style at play here, PAOC taking plenty of wickets with the new rock, while Pooraka seem to settle into a game and then rely on their change bowlers to get the job done.

Change
PAOC : Tyler (13 @ 22.38), Burford (6 @ 25.33)
Pooraka : Hanson (22 @ 17.77), James (16 @ 24.5)

As mentioned above, Pooraka do a lot of damage with their change bowlers. Hanson leading the way with 22 at a tidy average.

Spinners
PAOC : Ramakrishna (17 @ 16.35), Latchford (19 @ 11.16)
Pooraka : Jarrett (15 @ 33.07)

Big win for PAOC here.

Batting:
Top
Middle
Lower

Bowling:
Openers
Change
Spinners

So based on the above, you'd say PAOC needs to use their advantage with the spinners to win this game, however, with showers on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, you'd have to suggest their might not be a lot of overs bowled by the tweakers.

Looking back on their last 6 contests, Pooraka have won 5, with the 6th being last year's washed out Semi Final.
During that time, Mark Hanson has dominated, making 443 runs @ 147.7. If PAOC can't work out a way to remove Mark, Pooraka will be lifting the shield for the 4th time in a row.

Thanks a lot Xenophon. W@nker.

I'm playing my joker the next 4 weeks to try and catch up to the pack by round 6.

The Bedge wrote:

Trader wrote: +ve free kick count in the last 6 seasons?

That's just laziness.

P155 off mate, don't need your -ve vibes around here.

3 things that I noticed from the weekend:
-Our inability to hit a handball to the bloke on the defensive side of the pack killed us.
-Our forward 50 entries were below par.
-Scott Lycett is no superstar.

At least he's going to have several weeks to learn how to bounce a footy.

Open slather is fine, promotion and relegation will see clubs move to a grade that suits their budget and/or ability.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Darlington interchange....

It's quite funny isn't it.

I love the way Kouta engaged the contractor when in power, and now he's in opposition he's calling for an enquiry as to why they were given the job! haha

Leader Board after Round 8. I would be interested to know who has used jokers, and how many?!

Jokers - Score - Name
3 - 50 - Col
2 - 54 - Trader
2 - 52 - Booney
2 - 48 - Shaun
1 - 55 - waiting4amate
1 - 54 - Amber_Fluid
1 - 53 - Shaun Holland
1 - 52 - Rowdy
1 - 51 - Ice Bank Mice Elf
1 - 51 - Mr Beefy
1 - 51 - Corona
1 - 49 - Davo12
1 - 48 - Reno
1 - 47 - Chop
1 - 46 - Scott
1 - 46 - Yaaablett
1 - 45 - Patowalongapirate
1 - 42 - Aaron
1 - 42 - Spargo
0 - 45 - James Rundle
0 - 45 - Feenix
0 - 42 - Jimmy_041
0 - 39 - RustyCage
0 - 37 - SimonH

Now, if you say a joker is worth 7, here's an adjusted ladder:

waiting4amate leader
Amber_Fluid -1
Shaun Holland -2
Rowdy -3
James Rundle -3
Feenix -3
Ice Bank Mice Elf -4
Mr Beefy -4
Corona -4
Davo12 -6
Jimmy_041 -6
Reno -7
Trader -8
Chop -8
Scott -9
Yaaablett -9
RustyCage -9
Booney -10
Patowalongapirate -10
SimonH -11
Aaron -13
Spargo -13
Shaun -14
Col -19

I'm surprised that Port's is as high as it is with the shit game plan in place. Yep I was very surprised to see that this statistics show Port actually aren't that bad when it comes to inside 50 efficiency . Where I saw the article I initially thought Port have to be down the bottom in those kinds of stats.

Don't get carried away, we are still in the bottom 6, just at the upper end of that bottom 6.
Simply put, our entries still suck.

I think a lot of people wanted meaningful action on the climate crisis, which won't happen with the re election of a party deeply embedded within the coal industry
I get the feeling that people in Australia think, what's the point of us doing too much if the rest of the world is sitting on their hands. Global warming is an international issue that needs all countries on board.

There are also a lot of people who aren't convinced of the human impacts towards climate change.
If you say you are sceptical about the human impacts, you get called a climate denier and the left will paint you out to be some crackpot that doesn't see the climate is changing. (equally the right will do this on other issues).
So instead of having a healthy discussion about the human impact of climate change, you get to a point where no-one discusses it in a meaningful way. The left put out more and more absurd predictions, trying to grab attention, and the right ignore it (both the issue, and the chatter from the left).

Opinion polls ask people what they think about various issues, and knowing it doesn't mean anything, people just say the socially acceptable answer, the polls predict a labor victory as a result. But when push comes to shove, and people are in the ballot box, they are able to vote the way they actually feel, without being judged for their vote.

Do they count the performances from these practice matches into the players ODI career stats ?

No they don't, as they are not xi vs xi.

We played 12 a side a couple of weeks ago. Today's game vs Sri Lanka is 13 a side.

Players per side
13(11 batting, 11 fielding)

In theory that should make the game a better standard, so I'd think the game counts more than a random dead rubber 8 months out from the world cup, but whatever.

Dont know why you're repying - i'm certain he actually does get it and understands.. he's just being an absolute pest! :lol:

yeah I was going to include this pic at the bottom of my post but thought I'd give him one last chance.

https://pics.me.me/thumb_never-argue-with-stupid-people-they-will-drag-you-down-42565057.png

Sportsbet.

I just tried it out again with the Richmond vs Geelong match.

Geel/Geel 1-39/Geel (-10.5)/Under 163.5 (5.25), drop the H2H out and stays 5.25.

Wow, that is horrendously terrible value, no wonder Sportsbet promote these so much.

You think?

A night game at the G (wont be a high scoring game)
Geelong should win by about 4 or 5 goals, money for jam.

I wont argue with the betting guru though ;)

Put them all in a multi outside the SGM and it spits out $7.80. This is where Sportsbet clean up on these gimmicks

A betting guru would realise you can't put them in the same multi outside of the SGM as they are dependent results.
IE: Geelong into Geelong 1-39 has already been discussed, but you then also have an issue where Geelong to cover the line (-10.5), and Geelong 1-39 is a partial dependent result.

You won't get $7.80 for that anywhere, and if you find somewhere that does, I suggest you load up as that's long term printing money.

Essentially the bet LM has posted is Geelong by 11-39 and the total points under 163.5.

Now, what's the 'correct' odds for Geelong by 11-39? Well that's easy enough to work out.
Geelong to cover the line (-10.5) is a 50:50 bet.
We also know Geelong 40+ is 18% (40+ will be paying roughly $5.50 on a 100% market & 1/5.5 = 0.18 or 18%).
So Geelong 11-39 is simply the 50% for them to win by more than 10pts, less 18% for them to go 40+ = 32% (or $3.15)

Under/over 163.5 is a 50:50 bet, so the fair price on that is $2.

Multi up the $3.15 and the $2 = $6.30

Now you could also argue there is a slight dependence on the game not going over 163.5, and therefore Geelong not blowing the margin out past 39 points. How dependent is that? Well, anyone's guess really, but you'd have to say there is some sort of link here. So $6.30 would need to be reduced back somewhat. Say 50c, so I'd say the 'fair' price is in the order of $5.80. Sure, that's still higher than the $5.25 offered by sportsbet, but no where near as silly as the $7.80 the 'guru' suggests it should be.

Brodlach wrote:$120,000 a year with no mortgage, you wouldn’t need that much

I will if Carey gets his two businesses off the ground!

Interesting statement for Sydney to put out.
Are they in effect throwing Garner under the bus further by implying that Isaac sided with the "victim"?

I would have thought they should just stay quiet and let North Melbourne deal with it.

yup, seems they've learnt from that stupidity last season. Now we just need them to cut the xmas break back to two weeks like it always used to be.

If you chose to run a deficit, by definition, you are collecting insufficient tax to cover your spending.
Being proud that you've run up a debt for the other mob to pay off is stupid.

The labor party have never delivered a budget surplus. Never. Of course they are a lower taxing government.

A labor government leads to higher taxes in the long run. IE: That debt that they ran up needs to be paid off, plus interest.

The labor government is the 3 weeks in Croatia throwing up off the side of a sail boat.
The liberal government is then the next 6 months back at home paying off the credit card bill.

The labor party have never delivered a budget surplus. Never.
Yeah, nah.

The Hawke-Keating governments provided three consecutive surpluses in the late 1980s, just before the recession. And the preceding Fraser-Howard government were no strangers to budget deficits as well.

As a millennial I don't acknowledge anything more than 30 years old! haha

But good pick up, I was originally going to reply along the lines of the 'traditional' and 'modern' labor parties but then deleted most of that and just put in a simplified response, and failed to correct that section.
Well spotted.

I can only hope langer is putting that in the media to try and bluff the poms.
I would like to see Wade in for Uzzie as the only change, but agree the selectors see Handscomb as a like for like, and also don't want to be seen to have Wade 'jumping the queue' after they put Handscomb into the squad first.

For mine the strange one is the possible dropping of Maxwell. I recon he's better than "the rig" in all forms, bat, bowl and field. Furthermore, by dropping Maxi for Wade, you now have a situation where you have 5 bowling options, and the 6th is a long way back in Finch or Smith. Stoinis is hardly super reliable to get through his 10, I don't like the idea of having to get 10 from him without Maxi as back up.

Personally I'd do Wade for Uzzie and leave it at that.
If they want both Wade and Handscomb in, then I'd leave out Stoinis, not Maxi.

I need to know.. why girls/women where pants higher than their belly button that practically sits under their boobs? I knew a special needs boy when i was a kid - that's how he wore his pants too.

There are a range of reasons:

1. Prevents the dreaded “muffin-top.”
2. Comfort of the band sitting at the waist rather than tight on the hips.
3. You don't have to Suck in Your Stomach, the high waisted jeans do the work for you, keeping everything in place.
4. Short chicks love them as they make your legs look longer.

How the hell did you know all that?

Dated a few too many fatties in my time.

Would all clubs not affected by this be happy to contribute to the extra curator costs????

I think the other 50 odd clubs who don't have juniors playing in the u12 ATCA comp won't give two hoots about the costs of extra curating fees. They'll tell those 5 clubs to suck up the costs or move to a different comp.

I can not see 50-odd clubs losing access to my cricket and just accepting it when there is no benefit to them.

If SACA hold firm and withdraw ATCA's access to mycricket in all grades, Heyzer will flip very quickly, based on the pressure that will come from every club other than the 5 in question.

By the way, there are a number of clubs playing A1 turf with juniors in non-atca comps playing off shortened pitches on sundays. These guys don't have problems.

Salisbury West
Hackham
North Pines

Behavioral issues
Behavioral issues
Behavioral issues.

I'm all for the Adelaide Footy League expanding, but with 65 odd clubs already, it's not like we are in strife and need numbers for the sake of numbers. I'd happily pass on these three and not pick up the problems that come with them.