SA Footy

all rounder wrote:righto second half of the season, whos the ins and outs for finals and who drops down

Nuri as good as relegated, can't see them winning more than 1 or 2 games tops and they are 2 wins and a bit from safety.
Think we are all waiting for Freeling to come good and displace South or Sandy but they havnt hit their straps yet. South v Sandy is huge this week, Sandy win coupled with a Freeling loss and they open up a bit of a gap whilst a win for South tightens it right up. GV and Lyndoch playing for pride, can't make finals and won't be relegated, would imagine Lyndoch would be happy to stay up in their first season.

BoundaryRider84 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

Useless wrote:spewing he isnt doing it to Angaston tomorrow

brings up the 150 12 x4 12 x 6

153 out of 272 runs, fair knock by Big Pumpa

Barossa boys having a good game. First pumpa now Vic country 6/98 with Nottle having 5/9 off 12

BoundaryRider84 wrote:

BoundaryRider84 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

Useless wrote:spewing he isnt doing it to Angaston tomorrow

brings up the 150 12 x4 12 x 6

153 out of 272 runs, fair knock by Big Pumpa

Barossa boys having a good game. First pumpa now Vic country 6/98 with Nottle having 5/9 off 12

Now has 7/20

GV home in a nail biter today

Red Rocket wrote:GV home in a nail biter today

Yep one day GF all but decided now, it'll be Ango in their 7th decider in a row vs Sandy Creek.

Bit of controversy down at Sandy Creek today, very poor sportsmanship from Sandy Creek is what im hearing, is that correct?

Tell us what you heard days

james07 wrote:Tell us what you heard days

You were there mate, what happened?

Blah blah blah

cokadonkeytoo wrote:Blah blah blah

So nothing happened then?

Ok heres what I heard. A batsmen stops running, does a bit gardening because he thinks the ball had gone for 4 because it has rolled back down the hill on the boundary line and then gets run out as apparently the ball hadnt gone for 4. Controversy ensues. Is that not correct?

Hard to judge without being there but wouldn't the batsman keep running until the umpire signals a boundary?
I'd imagine South wouldn't of taken it too graciously seeing how they carry on whenever a decision goes against them.

Red Rocket wrote:Hard to judge without being there but wouldn't the batsman keep running until the umpire signals a boundary?
I'd imagine South wouldn't of taken it too graciously seeing how they carry on whenever a decision goes against them.

Thats right RR, thats why I was asking the question, nobody seemed to want to say that was actually there. I reckon that perhaps the batsman shouldve been called back but as you say hard to know without being there.
Its an ordinary boundary line that one at Sandy Creek

spot on days in your summary except the gardening bit,

daysofourlives wrote:Ok heres what I heard. A batsmen stops running, does a bit gardening because he thinks the ball had gone for 4 because it has rolled back down the hill on the boundary line and then gets run out as apparently the ball hadnt gone for 4. Controversy ensues. Is that not correct?

that's correct

Was Ahern or Andrews the victim?

The feedback given to me by a lot of the boy's was that Andrews had stopped running because it was that obvious the ball had gone for four.
Not being there is stopping me from having a decent crack at a couple of certain individuals.


My questions to be raised are these,
Why did Sandy not have a boundary line in place?
Why did the game start with this not in place?
Why did the official umpire not ask these questions before the start of play?
Why did the official umpire not make the right call in judging the batsmen not out?
Why did Sandy Creek captain let all of this happen?

This said to lose by 8 wickets was a very disappointing day for the club in such a big game in terms of points and the table.

On a better note our B grade got up against the “ unbeatables” in a thriller.

Some good points Slowey, the other point which is crucial is it didnt go for 4, the ball needs to cross the boundary for it to be 4, which it didnt.

Slowey wrote:The feedback given to me by a lot of the boy's was that Andrews had stopped running because it was that obvious the ball had gone for four.
Not being there is stopping me from having a decent crack at a couple of certain individuals.


My questions to be raised are these,
Why did Sandy not have a boundary line in place?
Why did the game start with this not in place?
Why did the official umpire not ask these questions before the start of play?
Why did the official umpire not make the right call in judging the batsmen not out?
Why did Sandy Creek captain let all of this happen?

This said to lose by 8 wickets was a very disappointing day for the club in such a big game in terms of points and the table.

On a better note our B grade got up against the “ unbeatables” in a thriller.

I've gotta say South played well, set really good fields and bowled well. Put all our bad balls away when batting and overall did the two main disciplines better that we did. I would like to think we won't field as bad as we did again and are certainly looking forward to meeting again in the finals

The umpire obviously didn't think it was four and he's the one that matters.

Tony Clifton wrote:The umpire obviously didn't think it was four and he's the one that matters.

My thinking would be a batsman can only be run out if he is attempting a run, the question for adjudication would therefore be was he attempting a run? This may or may not be right but that would be my understanding of the rules.

Despite all the questions that have been raised, at the end of the day I wouldve thought the captain probably was in the best position to make the call on whether the appeal shouldve been upheld. He obviously thought it should be out and thats what happened