acido
Conference
TOBY TYKE RULES
Posts: 128
|
Post by acido on Jul 19, 2008 1:28:52 GMT 1
Ive talked about this on the Leeds football board recently.
What about this fiasco with 'us' being kicked out of the cricket 20-20 cup finals day because of the ineligable player? The whole episode has left a sour taste and its been dealt with terribly by the cricket bosses.
And another subject, what about Andy Flintoff and his Lancashire team-mates openly admitting that they refer to Headingly as Galatasaray? I know the crowd treat the Lancies as the biggest rivals but is it right that he should make the Turkish comparison?, bearing in mind what most fans think about Galatasaray. And bearing in mind that its just before a big England test match at Headingley, where hes going to need the support of that majority of those 'Galatasaray' type fans?
|
|
|
Post by gordonbennett on Jul 19, 2008 13:32:41 GMT 1
Erm, maybe I've picked it up wrong, but weren't Yorkshire deducted 2 points (ie. 1 match) for the ineligible player? This had the effect of putting them out of the competition, as they only just qualified anyway, but it's different to being chucked out the competition...
In football, most times that an ineligible player is fielded, that team is cost that game - docked 3 points in the league or chucked out of the cup. Seems the ECB have done similar here, which is fair enough.
It's Durham that have the worst of all of this...
|
|
acido
Conference
TOBY TYKE RULES
Posts: 128
|
Post by acido on Jul 20, 2008 1:22:12 GMT 1
Yorkshire made the mistake to begin with yes, and need a kick up the backside for doing so. But why have Durham done worst of all out of this exactly?
|
|
|
Post by gordonbennett on Jul 20, 2008 14:24:14 GMT 1
They're the ones that had to deal with their home crowd being told the game had been postponed, announced at very short notice. They now find themselves having to reschedule a game into an extremely busy schedule, with a couple of players unavailable that they'd brought in especially for the Twenty20 Cup. None of this being their fault, remember, except for possibly the late announcement of the postponement, as they disputed it rather than accepting it.
The ECB should've been more decisive, and got this all dealt with so that it was only Yorkshire that were punished, but then they've never had the decisive trait...
|
|
|
Post by wortleygirl on Jul 20, 2008 22:55:39 GMT 1
They're the ones that had to deal with their home crowd being told the game had been postponed, announced at very short notice. They now find themselves having to reschedule a game into an extremely busy schedule, with a couple of players unavailable that they'd brought in especially for the Twenty20 Cup. None of this being their fault, remember, except for possibly the late announcement of the postponement, as they disputed it rather than accepting it. The ECB should've been more decisive, and got this all dealt with so that it was only Yorkshire that were punished, but then they've never had the decisive trait... Gordon How right you are re the ECB. They actually informed Yorkshire on the Friday that there was a potential problem, Yorkshire then sent them every relevant piece of information and documentation that they had before the weekend was over. Their "legal eagles" informed them (the ECB) by at least 2.30pm on the Monday that if they let the game go ahead, there could be repercussions from the other Counties ie Nottingham and Glamorgan...not to mention Durham. So...why did it take until 5.25pm, only 5 minutes before "kick off" (so to speak) for the bloody thing to be officially called off. I would imagine that thick as the ECB are they would have informed Durham of the "legal eagles" opinion soon after 2.30pm and if Durham did not accept it...then they have to shoulder some of the blame for the late call off. I can also imagine the outcry from Durham if the game had gone ahead and they won, only to be told the result was void and they had to play Nottingham or Glamorgan and on doing so...they then lost. I am not, by the way, absolving Yorkshire for their part in the cock up..they should have made sure that ALL the relevant paperwork was signed by EVERY player. But I do find it strange that the ENGLAND under 15 and under17 Captain is deemed to be a foreigner.
|
|
|
Post by gordonbennett on Jul 20, 2008 23:43:06 GMT 1
Apparently Durham were first told to postpone it between 2.30 and 3, but they didn't want to, and "fought" the ECB over the phone about it, and eventually had to postpone it at the eleventh hour. They didn't want to postpone it mainly due to the packed fixture list, meaning they didn't have much space for the match.
The rules are different for eligibility for the junior sides and the senior sides, I believe. Presumably to play for the seniors you have to have been born in the country or lived here for a certain length of time, whereas the junior sides you just need to live here. A bit like Ryan Giggs playing for England Schoolboys and Wales seniors, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by wortleygirl on Jul 20, 2008 23:50:17 GMT 1
Not sure about the rules on eligibilty ...but Kevin Petersen only had to live here for 4 years....Rafiq has been here for over 8 years and speaks with a lovely Barnsley accent.
|
|