Current Page: 1 of 2
-2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: BarmierKev (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 08:32

This has been mentioned on Surrey and Yorkshire thread but given it's such a hot potato is worthy of a thread in itself.

I'm incensed by the decision to deduct us two points. We had a freak life threatening incident where the rule book was ignored and common sense prevailed by calling game off. Had this incident not happened we had enough time to get our over rate to parity and common sense says given the extreme circumstances not make a deduction.

I will be contacting the Club to find out whether they are appealing this.

Any Kevin Hand updates please put on this thread.



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2017 17:41 by BarmierKev.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 09:10

I'm trying to put on an unbiased hat, rather than a Middlesex one.

From the ECB point of view, if relegation is decided by one point, it is probably easier to legally defend the two point penalty, (that is where we where when the game ended) rather than 'assume' we would have sorted it (which we surely would).

Defence should be along the lines of this sets a dangerous precident, because any lunatic opposition fan could end a game early to deprive the other side of points. I'm not suggesting this was a Surrey fan. His strange 'motivation' is yet to be explained.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: BarmierKev (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 09:43

Being unbiased , had this gone against any other county I would have the same view. Being a Middlesex fan I am very passionate about this injustice.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 09:52

If they are discussing it, I'll never know.

Nearly half an hour in, and no commentary (have checked other commentaries, and they're fine).

Edit- now working. Might need to go away from site for a few seconds and try again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2017 09:54 by chunkyinargyll.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Fozzie (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 10:11

Following Chunky's suggestion I tweeted Kevin Hand this morning to draw to his attention. He retweeted and commented as below:

"Shockingly unfair as declaration was imminent to get overrate down. Hope an oversight by @ECB_cricket otherwise very, very poor. #bbccricket"
[t.co]

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 10:27

It's really odd that no one else has picked up on this.

Sky league table also confirms 2 point deduction.

Nothing from Georgie Dobell, or anything online that I can see (apart from us).

No statement on Middlesex website or twitter, but 2 point deduction is there for all to see on BBC and Sky league tables.

On com DT made same points I made- tends to agree it would be an injustice because any oppo fan could end a game early to disadvantage other side.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: adelaide (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 11:08

Chunky

DT makes sense shock horror sensation...

Of course exactly the same point about an oppo fan intervening would apply with even more force if a match was about to be won or lost, in which case we would be talking 11 points rather than 2. Then what would the ECB do? In this case it seems self-evident that Middlesex should not be penalised for something that came literally out of a (blue?) sky. But if a team is about to lose, should they be docked the draw points and the other team given the win points?

Remember "George Davis was innocent"? A Test was abandoned because of that. So the motives of the disrupter aren't really at issue. I can't really see any fan intervening in the way suggested for a CC match.

Finally, I do agree with those whose repsonse is "don't get into the mess in the first place", as you can never entirely guaranteee a second crack to sort it out.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Surbiton crusader2 (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 11:53

If they cant keep up with the over rate it's nobody's fault but their own...

SC2

Ps Get Finn and TRJ to shorten their run ups Counties used to bowl 104 overs in a day before and plenty more before that!

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 18:59

As a Middlesex supporter, I would obviously prefer us to have not been deducted two points. However, I find it difficult to sympathise with the team’s strategy of tending to rely on there being a second innings to have the opportunity to get the over rate out of the red. Sometimes, the match position or the weather forecast can make it clear that there may not be a second innings. Also, even if there is a second innings, surely we would rather enter with our only thought being of how to bowl our opponents out for as low a total as possible rather than having the additional aim of sorting out our over rate. For example, if we set a team a target of 150 on a pitch where the fast bowlers are expected to prosper, the last thing we would wish to do would be to risk giving momentum to our opponents by replacing the fast bowlers with spinners so we can improve our over rate. Therefore, the team really need to get these things sorted in the first innings.

I suppose our thinking is that:
If our opponents look like achieving their target, then we can try to quickly get our over rate out of the red before they win.
If the match is heading for a draw, then it would be the perfect circumstances in which to improve our over rate.
If we look like winning, we might not care about losing a couple of points.

Entering day four of last week’s match v Surrey at The Oval, the forecast was that the weather would reduce the amount of playing time. The crossbow incident meant that, even though the forecast proved incorrect, the amount of playing time turned out to be similar to what was expected, meaning that I don’t feel the precise reasons why play finished early are relevant to the argument as to whether we should lose points. Because of the forecast, we really should have budgeted for the possibility of there not being enough time for a second innings. In any case, as the match situation at one stage on day four was that we were just 61 ahead with four wickets remaining and with Nick Compton uncertain to return to the crease, it didn’t appear to be in our interests to hope that Surrey would bat again.

If the club are successful in getting this deduction overturned, then I can’t say I would feel entirely comfortable, as my personal beliefs mean I don’t like the idea of achieving things through deceitful means. If I really wanted to, I could have tried exaggerating my disability when I was offered the opportunity to claim Personal Independence Payment, and I could try boosting my chances of returning to employment by claiming that I have ability and experience in communicating with people, but that goes against my beliefs.

I hope that these two points lost don’t cause us to be relegated, as I feel we could make a challenge for the division one title next season if we stay up, which is something we could obviously not do if we get relegated. Indeed, my instinct tells me that if we get relegated, it would mean that we would have to wait few years to get ourselves into a position from which we could win the division one title, as we would of course have to get back up and cement our place in division one before thinking of the title. However, Essex have shown that is possible to win the title the season after going up.

If it is any consolation, Northampton clearly have more difficulties than us with the over rate, as they have so far lost five points this season.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Fozzie (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 20:22

I share all the above frustrations about our ongoing over rate issues, and it's particularly frustrating that year after year nothing seems to have changed. If Middlesex bank on putting things right in the second innings they are clearly taking chances, and if the weather or their own batting ineptitude means that there is no second innings clearly they deserve no sympathy.

But let's put this into context. This is (we all hope) a one-off situation arising from an incident in which the police have charged a man with attempted GBH; in which a potentially fatal missile landed only feet from the players; in which Nick Compton would appear to have seen the arrow in flight as it flew towards the players, given that he indicated the direction from which it had come; in which the umpires quickly took the players off the field from concern for their safety; and in which the police likewise carried out an orderly evacuation of the ground. Inevitably, with less than a couple of hours to play, the match was abandoned. These are not, to put it mildly, normal playing conditions or the sort of vagaries that players should have to factor into account.

I'm glad that you did the right thing when claiming benefits, Jonathan, and did not exaggerate your condition in the hope of getting more money. That does you credit. But, with respect, I don't feel that your analogy of Middlesex looking to have this points deduction waived being akin to a false and deceitful claim for benefits is either apt or fair.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: adelaide (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 20:43

An excellent summary, Fozzie.

If Surrey had bowled us out very cheaply we would have had to take the points deduction on the chin. Similarly if it had rained all day. Both those are known risks that can be assessed in advance to some extent. Both are good reasons for not getting behind in the first innings of course.

However both risks had been averted and commonsense says that it is where the match was that matters, not where it might have been. The over rate would clearly have been sorted out without the mad archer's intervention. That should be it, end of story. Acting as if it wouldn't have been sorted out seems much more worthy of being described as a deception.

While I sympathise with the objectives of the over rate rule, it doesn't half give rise to some odd scenarios. Your over rate is -1, the opposition are 100-4 in their second innings and the spinners are bowling. Oops, six wickets go down in three overs and you're stuck with a penalty. My issue with this is that over rates are typically lower in the first than the second innings because the spinners often barely get a look in first time round. So 15 or even 14 overs per hour might be considered acceptable in the first innings, to be accompanied by setting it at 17 or 18 overs per hour in the second. In each case a minimum number of overs would have to be bowled before an assessment is made. That would be more in tune with the way cricket is actually played in English conditions and coincidentally would render the late declaration to sort out the over rate irrelevant as the first innings rate would have to stand on its own.

If TRJ gets a central contract there might be less of a problem, though Tom Helm hasn't got the shortest of runs. Ryan Higgins as a regular would also help.


Adelaide

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: BarmierKev (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 22:02

There are a lot of good points made here well put.

I just can't believe the Lack of common sense applied by the ECB on what was a life threatening freak moment. The over rate would have been dealt with if it wasn't for this act of madness.



Barmy Kev
I'm only here for the tele

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 07 September, 2017 22:34

My point about achieving things by deceitful means is that I don’t see the difference between Middlesex being unable to sort out the over rate due to inclement weather or due to an unforeseen incident. Maybe my view would be different if the forecast suggested that there would be a full day’s play on day four. However, as I assumed rain would come along at some point in the afternoon or evening, I didn’t think it would be wise for us to expect to have an opportunity to bowl again late in the day. I foresaw that play would finish early, although I was incorrect in anticipating exactly why it finished early.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: adelaide (IP Logged)
Date: 08 September, 2017 00:29

Jonathan

Weather is part of cricket. Arrows are not.

The point is, surely, that the team have access to forecasts, rain radars and the like in the dressing room. They have a good idea of what is coming and, if the match position permits, they can tailor what they do at the wicket (and for how long) accordingly. As it was, with no rain forecast at the time (an assumption on my part as I was in Devon at the time, where it was chucking it down) it looked as if the plan was to let Simmo get his ton, declare and chuck down a few pies. If rain had been expected, I imagine that some of the pies would already have been in the process of being chucked.

I see where you are coming from but I cannot for the life of me see how you equate stating the obvious about what was going to happen with telling porkies about a disability to get more benefit.


Adelaide

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 08 September, 2017 06:47

What I find odd is the lack of publicity on this matter.

This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect would produce an online piece from cricinfo, along the lines of 'Middlesex deducted 2 points in controversial circumstances' but apart from ourselves, and the Surrey forum, I can't find anything.

It feels like this has been sneaked in with minimum publicity.

Even on yesterday's commentary, it was mentioned for first 10 minutes, then radio silence (almost as if someone had contacted them to say, 'Please don't mention this'). Normally anything controversial is laboured to death, with listeners tweets read out, and it becomes the talking point of the day. But not this time.

KH could have asked Richard Scott about it on the close of play interview, but not mentioned.

I hope this means we are appealing, and have decided our best chance is to keep quiet publicly on the matter, but considering the circumstances, the lack of any publicity is very strange.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Fozzie (IP Logged)
Date: 08 September, 2017 07:38

My guess is that Middlesex are trying to get this quietly resolved behind the scenes as diplomatically as possible. Hope so, anyway.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: BeefyRoberts (IP Logged)
Date: 08 September, 2017 10:32

Have just seen this.
I know we do drag our heels at times regarding the over rate,and have been close to getting points deducted for that reason,but,to take 2 points off us when an act of vandalism,or having players of both sides threatened with crossbow arrow(s) is just beyond comprehension.
What are those idiots at the ECB thinking?
I sincerely hope the club appeal against this action and,if need be,go for legal help in this matter.
Thanks for alerting us about this action,Will the Cricket Paper have anything about It???

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Seaxe_Man (IP Logged)
Date: 08 September, 2017 11:13

A minus overrate a long standing problem for Middlesex which recent events at the Oval have brought sharply into focus.

The scenarios have been been succinctly described on this thread by the MTWD posters.

With the reduction of the first division to 8 clubs and 14 games (allegedly to provide rest or more T20, take your pick) and two to be relegated.

It follows that with 25% of the division to be relegated, a point or two here and there likely to be crucial.

I guess as has been pointed out, although the decision is based over two innings, it is best practice to ensure that you finish up at least even red in the first innings, thereby taking pressure off the second, which due to circumstance, may not happen.

Had a quick look at Cricket Paper Beefy. Have'nt noticed any comment as yet.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 08 September, 2017 16:24

Interesting comment from DT on commentary-

Middlesex told by umpires, 'Don't worry. We'll sort it'

Then in confusion umpires forgot, and signed match off.

Apparently once match is signed off, that's it.

But IF we had a verbal assurance umpires would sort it that should be legally binding. I suppose 'sort it' meant inventing some imaginary scenarios of needing to attend to bowlers foot marks, batsmen needing attention etc.

We must surely be making representations behind the scenes. Umpires agree to 'sort it' and then forget to do so.

Could only happen in cricket.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2017 16:27 by chunkyinargyll.

Re: -2 You're Having a Laugh
Posted by: Fozzie (IP Logged)
Date: 09 September, 2017 08:27

The club have now issued a brief statement on this. Richard Goatley says that they are extremely disappointed by the ECB's decision, but have have been advised that there is no further scope for appeal.

[www.middlesexccc.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2017 08:28 by Fozzie.

Current Page: 1 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net