The Moose wrote:
Also, ask the question why did a Ramblers player play on the weekend while he was (apparently) meant to be in isolation?
Let’s not gloss over this rather important fact. Acting against SA Health close contact requirements is probably a larger story than 6 players coming back positive and unable to play. No repercussions? Not the first time their club have been flagged for acting against protocol.
It’s Ramblers competition, we just play in it. Well done to the exec committee for standing up to the Ramblers.
I'm not sure where the commentary about a KNOWN positive player came from but that is completely untrue.
A player was advised SUNDAY EVENING they were a close contact and came down with illness MONDAY.
If the Ramblers wanted to play with POSITIVE cases why would they have kept the association informed all week & even play the player.
The Moose wrote:
Also, ask the question why did a Ramblers player play on the weekend while he was (apparently) meant to be in isolation?
Let’s not gloss over this rather important fact. Acting against SA Health close contact requirements is probably a larger story than 6 players coming back positive and unable to play. No repercussions? Not the first time their club have been flagged for acting against protocol.
It’s Ramblers competition, we just play in it. Well done to the exec committee for standing up to the Ramblers.
I'm not sure where the commentary about a KNOWN positive player came from but that is completely untrue.
A player was advised SUNDAY EVENING they were a close contact and came down with illness MONDAY.
If the Ramblers wanted to play with POSITIVE cases why would they have kept the association informed all week & even play the player.
Whats the other protocol you speak of?
My apologies. I’m only going by what was submitted here.
Protocol would be the standard SA Health close contact rules which can be located on the SA Health website.
The Moose wrote:
Also, ask the question why did a Ramblers player play on the weekend while he was (apparently) meant to be in isolation?
Let’s not gloss over this rather important fact. Acting against SA Health close contact requirements is probably a larger story than 6 players coming back positive and unable to play. No repercussions? Not the first time their club have been flagged for acting against protocol.
It’s Ramblers competition, we just play in it. Well done to the exec committee for standing up to the Ramblers.
I'm not sure where the commentary about a KNOWN positive player came from but that is completely untrue.
A player was advised SUNDAY EVENING they were a close contact and came down with illness MONDAY.
If the Ramblers wanted to play with POSITIVE cases why would they have kept the association informed all week & even play the player.
Whats the other protocol you speak of?
My apologies. I’m only going by what was submitted here.
Protocol would be the standard SA Health close contact rules which can be located on the SA Health website.
Any suggestion players played last weekend against mandatory isolation laws knowing they were positive are completely malicious.
Keswick batted first and made 136. Pretty impressive effort from the 4 bowlers used. Ramblers finished the day 4 for 9 with still some batting left in the tank. Would be an incredible result if Ramblers were to get up.
caleb777 wrote:The Section 1 gf tomorrow is an absolute farce. Basically the entire Rambler side is out with covid and the Association have decided to play on. What an absolute joke.
caleb777 wrote:The Section 1 gf tomorrow is an absolute farce. Basically the entire Rambler side is out with covid and the Association have decided to play on. What an absolute joke.
Do you feel any differently now?
Lol, one of the biggest win in Rambler history. Against all the odds. Archie with 70 off almost 200 balls. Unreal innings. I guess the cricket Gods were smiling on the Men in blue.
caleb777 wrote:The Section 1 gf tomorrow is an absolute farce. Basically the entire Rambler side is out with covid and the Association have decided to play on. What an absolute joke.
Do you feel any differently now? [emoji38]
Lol, one of the biggest win in Rambler history. Against all the odds. Archie with 70 off almost 200 balls. Unreal innings. I guess the cricket Gods were smiling on the Men in blue.
Unbelievable result.
Crazy that the guys that came into the team as COVID replacements after not playing a game all season are now premiership players.
In the Section 2 GF it looks like Harding played a fantastic innings (130* from 106 balls with 7 fours and 12 sixes) to see Sheidow Park through to a comprehensive 8 wicket win. I have alot of respect for the Sheidow boys and they are deserving premiers.
We had a crazy result in the Section 5 GF, our B grade won the premiership being the higher ranked team as the game ended in a tie! Fantastic for our boys to win it despite it coming about in such a odd way.
caleb777 wrote:The Section 1 gf tomorrow is an absolute farce. Basically the entire Rambler side is out with covid and the Association have decided to play on. What an absolute joke.
Do you feel any differently now?
Lol, one of the biggest win in Rambler history. Against all the odds. Archie with 70 off almost 200 balls. Unreal innings. I guess the cricket Gods were smiling on the Men in blue.
After being 4/9 and missing some good players... certainly one of the best wins ever..
Some amazing results, Section 1 win will be written into history as one for the ages and the Section 5 tie would have been incredible to witness. Well done to all the winners.
Moe wrote:Good luck to the team's that made finals this weekend.
Unfortunately, my F grade missed finals by percentage, but for a 6th team, we gave it a pretty good crack.
To all the club's we played against in section 10, I can honestly say that everyone played in the right spirit and just enjoyed being out on the field, playing our great game.
Well, nearly every club.
ICC, Mitchell Park, Ramblers, Keswick, Porties and Warradale were terrific blokes.
South Road, we didn't get a chance to meet you, as our only game was a forfeiture from them.
Moe wrote:Good luck to the team's that made finals this weekend.
Unfortunately, my F grade missed finals by percentage, but for a 6th team, we gave it a pretty good crack.
To all the club's we played against in section 10, I can honestly say that everyone played in the right spirit and just enjoyed being out on the field, playing our great game.
Well, nearly every club.
ICC, Mitchell Park, Ramblers, Keswick, Porties and Warradale were terrific blokes.
South Road, we didn't get a chance to meet you, as our only game was a forfeiture from them.
Happy Valley, well ,you know my feelings here.
Cheers Moe
Thrilled with the Div 10 winners I'd imagine?
Dunno the background here, but my son's mate (15yo) won his first senior flag in that team, exactly the type of story you love to see in lower grade cricket.
Moe wrote:Good luck to the team's that made finals this weekend.
Unfortunately, my F grade missed finals by percentage, but for a 6th team, we gave it a pretty good crack.
To all the club's we played against in section 10, I can honestly say that everyone played in the right spirit and just enjoyed being out on the field, playing our great game.
Well, nearly every club.
ICC, Mitchell Park, Ramblers, Keswick, Porties and Warradale were terrific blokes.
South Road, we didn't get a chance to meet you, as our only game was a forfeiture from them.
Happy Valley, well ,you know my feelings here.
Cheers Moe
Thrilled with the Div 10 winners I'd imagine?
Dunno the background here, but my son's mate (15yo) won his first senior flag in that team, exactly the type of story you love to see in lower grade cricket.
Na, not too thrilled to be honest.
Handed a gift, and if they ever whinge again, they should be laughed out of the comp.
The young fella you mention is a terrific kid. Unfortunately I don't think he'll learn much from the rest of his teammates regarding the spirit of the game though.
Sure, a premiership is a premiership, but Happy Valley should NEVER have been in this section to start with.
Neither should have Warradale to be honest, as a club's B grade playing section 10 is also wrong IMO,but at least their team was actually full of quite old blokes.
Ok this thread has gone quiet for long enough. Let’s get some chins wagging with a radical idea that would change and likely fix any issues that were had last season with certain clubs sitting in certain sections.
Return of 12 side sections. Below is an example of how it would be set up for the top 3 sections:
Section 1
Coromandel Ramblers
Keswick
ICC Sharks
Coromandel
Western Youth Centre
Cove
Plympton Footballers
Phantoms
Sheidow Park
Morphettville Park
Port Noarlunga
North Haven
Section 2
Mitchell Park
Happy Valley
South Road
Fitzroy
Warradale
Kenilworth
Coromandel II
Sheidow Park II
Coromandel Ramblers II
ICC Sharks II
Keswick II
Morphettville Park II
Section 3
St Johns OS
Southern
Morphett Vale
Flagstaff Hill
Afghan
South Park
Phantoms II
Plympton Footballers II
Port Noarlunga II
North Haven II
Cove II
Western Youth Centre II
Each season two teams go up, and two go down.
SANFL finals format is adopted where a top 5 make finals. The top side not only earns automatic promotion for the next season but they earn the advantage of the first week off.
As mentioned above, the minor premier wins automatic promotion. The premiership side would also be promoted. If the minor premier wins the premiership, the team they play in the grand final is promoted.
The bottom side is automatically relegated. 10th vs 11th in a relegation playoff week one of the finals.
This adds stakes to every single game throughout the season. A side sitting 5th or 6th at Christmas is still realistically fighting to remain out of the relegation zone.
Naturally this creates the need for more home and away games to be played, which would mean back to back one day games could be played on Saturday/Sundays to make up these additional fixtures. The other benefit to this is preparing sides for Saturday/Sunday finals games, which as we all know are taxing on the body.
Alternatively, we no longer have the need to play every team twice, with the last few rounds of the season left as TBA and could be fixtured based on ladder position towards the latter part of the season.
I feel the competition could greatly benefit from such a change, as not only are we one of the only hard wicket competitions with two day cricket still in tact but would add larger stakes to any one day game that may have previously been seen as somewhat of a dead rubber.
Has the association ever been 12 sides per section ?
I do recall it being 10 but not 12.
In saying that any thoughts on how to improve things should always be considered.
V0ice0fthev0iceless wrote:Ok this thread has gone quiet for long enough. Let’s get some chins wagging with a radical idea that would change and likely fix any issues that were had last season with certain clubs sitting in certain sections.
Return of 12 side sections. Below is an example of how it would be set up for the top 3 sections:
Section 1
Coromandel Ramblers
Keswick
ICC Sharks
Coromandel
Western Youth Centre
Cove
Plympton Footballers
Phantoms
Sheidow Park
Morphettville Park
Port Noarlunga
North Haven
Section 2
Mitchell Park
Happy Valley
South Road
Fitzroy
Warradale
Kenilworth
Coromandel II
Sheidow Park II
Coromandel Ramblers II
ICC Sharks II
Keswick II
Morphettville Park II
Section 3
St Johns OS
Southern
Morphett Vale
Flagstaff Hill
Afghan
South Park
Phantoms II
Plympton Footballers II
Port Noarlunga II
North Haven II
Cove II
Western Youth Centre II
Each season two teams go up, and two go down.
SANFL finals format is adopted where a top 5 make finals. The top side not only earns automatic promotion for the next season but they earn the advantage of the first week off.
As mentioned above, the minor premier wins automatic promotion. The premiership side would also be promoted. If the minor premier wins the premiership, the team they play in the grand final is promoted.
The bottom side is automatically relegated. 10th vs 11th in a relegation playoff week one of the finals.
This adds stakes to every single game throughout the season. A side sitting 5th or 6th at Christmas is still realistically fighting to remain out of the relegation zone.
Naturally this creates the need for more home and away games to be played, which would mean back to back one day games could be played on Saturday/Sundays to make up these additional fixtures. The other benefit to this is preparing sides for Saturday/Sunday finals games, which as we all know are taxing on the body.
Alternatively, we no longer have the need to play every team twice, with the last few rounds of the season left as TBA and could be fixtured based on ladder position towards the latter part of the season.
I feel the competition could greatly benefit from such a change, as not only are we one of the only hard wicket competitions with two day cricket still in tact but would add larger stakes to any one day game that may have previously been seen as somewhat of a dead rubber.
Keen to hear some thoughts!
Current system is the best since I have been playing.
whitepointers wrote:Congratulations to Russ Curyer on winning his 3rd Section One MVP.
Yep, well deserved. Have noticed a couple of genuine errors in the voting though where the umpire has clearly just got names wrong. A bit more credibility would be nice to pay honour to the Halliday and Heptinstall names.
And yep, Section 1 was a 12 team comp a few years ago.
