Current Page: 1 of 6
Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 12:01

[www.espn.com]

We have appealed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2017 17:24 by BarmierKev.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: Surbiton crusader2 (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 12:26

It'll come to nothing. Should have been done at the time of the incident.

SC2

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 13:12

Not only may Somerset object to relegation on the grounds of 'Didn't know what we had to do going into the final round,' but also on the grounds of the ECB's public statement that "Middx have no right of appeal," -- we could use this to say that we were 'certain that we knew what we had to do going into the final round because we had a public assurance from the ECB that Middx could not appeal."

What an absolute shower of incompetent nincompoops this organisation truly is.. a national joke. Couldn't run a whelk stall.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 13:13

Surbiton - but surely you didn't appeal at the time because you were told you couldn't?

The idiot ECB has now moved the goalposts (again!)

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 13:16

And if the ECB didn't tell you that you couldn't appeal, why would Richard Goatley have said "There is no scope for any further appeal"?

Clearly, that *must* be what the jibbering ninnies of the ECB must have told him.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: chunkyinargyll (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 13:19

We appealed at the time, and after five days we were told 'No further right of appeal'

That doesn't mean Middlesex 'accepted' the decision- merely we were told, 'No further right of appeal'

Except now there is.

Either ECB plan to sit on their hands for a week, and then stick to original decision, (just to make it look like they are being 'reasonable') or there will be a change of heart.

I still don't see Somerset being relegated as being in anyway likely. I do see nine teams being a potential compromise- but I put it no higher than that.

Final verdict no later than end of next week.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: Darren Gosling (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 13:50

Appealing now is downright embarrassing as it just smacks of clutching at straws. If Richard Goatley had any balls he WOULD have lodged an appeal AT THE TIME - if the ECB had refused to listen to the appeal that is up to them- and we could have seeked recourse through the courts.
Another show of weak leadership which has been inherent all season beginning with the Essex non-declaration, which incidentally would have made arrowgate completely irrelavant...

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: BeefyRoberts (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 14:05

It's all getting rather repetitive with all going on!
Can't see why the club are appealing to be honest,the fact is...We screwed the season up,so let's get on with preparing for 2018 and what is done,is done.

ECB should of just stuck with what they said and closed the book on it.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 15:06

I've cut and pasted this from our own board... it would seem that the ECB is contravening its own procedures...

CRICKET DISCIPLINE COMMISSION REGULATIONS

Guidelines


Guideline 4
The procedures under the CDC Regulations are designed to be flexible so as to meet the requirements of all competitions. Both the summary procedure under Regulation 5 and the Disciplinary Panel Hearings and Appeal Panel Hearings under Regulations 7 and 10 are intended to meet the needs of all current competitions.

If a Disciplinary Panel is
required to determine a complaint, it will be convened quickly and, save for a hearing on a Twenty20 Finals Day, the expectation is that any appeal against its decision will be determined before the next stage of the competition in which the matter giving rise to the complaint occurred.

So clearly the expectation in the rules is that appeals will always be heard before the next round of a competition as the Middlesex appeal was. So I'm not sure what basis they are looking at it again?

Maybe some ECB lawyer has told them that Middx have a strong case for legal action against the ECB - and either that the strength of the case could be weakened if the ECB allows a further appeal or perhaps the lawyerly advice is that MCCC have a stronger case for legal action than SCCC would so, should they relegate us, so that's what they plan to do..

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: sfwithers (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 15:12

Well, well, well. Were the appeal to succeed and Somerset be relegated (and I know Chunky thinks that won't happen), that would keep the lawyers busy. I don't see there's any way that the appeal could succeed as it would be retrospectively moving the goalposts - which would be beyond farce - unless they bodge a one-team-down solution. The ECB seems to be up there with so many other sporting bodies when it comes to staggering levels of incompetence. Which should really come as no surprise. Madness.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: MiddleToWest (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 16:47

Surely the best solution all round is for Middlesex and Somerset to stay in Division One and for Surrey to be relegated.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: Fozzie (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 18:43

Groan. Let's just let it go and concentrate on getting promotion next season.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: The Diamond ruled ok (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 19:50

Love your idea Middle To West but would imagine the lawyers at the Oval are probably better connected than ours and wouldn't spend an age getting that decision overturned.

Just let it go will you Middlesex, ok it's 2 points we shouldn't have been docked but we lost a hell of a lot more than that during the season through our misguided batting efforts and not bowling sides out twice.

Arrowgate 2 beginning to sound like Arrowgate 1 ....desperate.

I have a horrid feeling we will all only be put out of our misery over this when the fixtures for 2018 are produced (probably late as well) .

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 20:08

Given the choice between this appeal succeeding and Middlesex being on the receiving end of much resentment (whether this be due to Somerset being relegated instead, or there being a reversion to a nine-team division one), or this appeal failing and Middlesex having a successful and enjoyable season in division two, I would feel considerably more comfortable with the latter, and I think there are plenty of other supporters who feel similarly to me. However, despite it being likely that our squad will be either slightly stronger or considerably stronger than many teams in division two, there is no certainty that we would go up at our first attempt, which is why it is worth the club doing everything in their power to avoid relegation.

I suppose the result of this appeal will be dependent on whether ECB take into account a). that the umpires allegedly assured us that they would not report our slow over rate; and b). that the circumstances of the abandonment were extraordinary. Personally, I don’t think it makes much difference whether the match was abandoned due to a crossbow or due to inclement weather. However, the fact we were apparently assured that our slow over rate would not be reported must count for something, as it meant there was initially an expectation that we would not be penalised, although then again, the last ball of the match had been bowled by that point, so in a way, whatever the umpires said should carry less weight than what they said while the match was in progress.

There are probably a few of reasons why our fight against this deduction is being stepped up now rather than after the match v Surrey at The Oval finished on 31st August. One reason is that I don’t think the deduction came to anyone’s attention until 6th September, by which time attention had turned to day two of the following round of County Championship matches, when we were playing Yorkshire at Headingley. A second reason is that fears that we would be relegated had still to sink in by the end of the Surrey match, as we would have been 26 points clear at that point without the deduction, so most followers felt confident that we would stay up if our final four matches saw no defeats with maybe a win thrown in (although of course we were aware that our final match v Somerset at Taunton would be perilous). A third reason is that we have more time on our hands now that we did while the season was ongoing.

Although our performances leading into the Surrey match were unbefitting of title holders and the performances failed to put to bed any lingering fears of relegation, it wasn’t really until the following week’s match at Headingley that I began to feel like we could really go down, as our draw coupled with Somerset’s win v Warwickshire at Edgbaston cut the buffer to 13 points, meaning it was the first time since the start of the season the buffer had been below 24 points (a significant figure due to that being the amount of points available for a win with maximum bonus points). The following week, we drew v Hampshire at Uxbridge while Somerset beat Lancashire at Taunton, taking us into the relegation zone due to us having one fewer win than Somerset. When we beat Lancashire at Lord’s and Somerset lost to Surrey at The Oval, we went 16 points clear, so I felt confident we could survive. Sadly, Somerset’s win against us at Taunton following week caused us to go down. As this shows, the fear that the points deduction would cost us wasn’t as great after the match v Surrey at The Oval compared to in the following weeks.

There are a few reasons why it would be uncertain that we would be promoted at our first attempt, even if we perform better in division two than we did in division one. Warwickshire and Sussex will also believe they can get promoted, Northamptonshire will be keen to get over the line after only missing out on promotion in 2017 due to over rate difficulties of their own, while the six other teams will be keen to do what Worcestershire did this season and get promoted without being fancied. Teams in division two will play five opponents twice and four opponents once, meaning the teams around us in the table could conceivably get a kinder fixturelist than us. As is always the case in county cricket, there is every possibility that there could be rounds of matches in which our efforts to win are stifled by the weather and/or pitch, while our rivals are able to win. Therefore, it is understandable why the club are reluctant to have the mindset that there is no need to appeal our relegation on the basis of it being a certainty that our on-field performances in 2018 will secure us division one cricket for 2019.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: freddie tittlemouse (IP Logged)
Date: 11 October, 2017 20:47

Quick! We need to take this to the European Court of Human Resources before Brexit.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12 October, 2017 12:20

JW - I cannot understand, for the life of me, why Middx should be on the receiving end of resentment, should the ECB decide to relegate only Warwickshire?

They, surely to goodness, could not contend that they did not deserve to be relegated?

Why would anybody else care?

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12 October, 2017 12:24

"There are probably a few of reasons why our fight against this deduction is being stepped up now rather than after the match v Surrey at The Oval finished on 31st August. One reason is that I don’t think the deduction came to anyone’s attention until 6th September, by which time attention had turned to day two of the following round of County Championship matches, when we were playing Yorkshire at Headingley. A second reason is that fears that we would be relegated had still to sink in by the end of the Surrey match, as we would have been 26 points clear at that point without the deduction, so most followers felt confident that we would stay up if our final four matches saw no defeats with maybe a win thrown in (although of course we were aware that our final match v Somerset at Taunton would be perilous). A third reason is that we have more time on our hands now that we did while the season was ongoing."

Isn't the keyword in the above paragraph "followers," JW?

It is, quite clearly, not the responsibility of Middx supporters either to contest the deduction or to impress upon Middx's paid management that there might be a need to do so.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: middleman (IP Logged)
Date: 12 October, 2017 12:25

What a total mess? Blame on the ECB and Middlesex for not sorting this out at the time or before the commencement of the next round of matches. Or maybe the umpires have actually blundered here.

The rule on over rate penalties by implication actually covers the situation:
The rule under 16.4 states:

"Any suspension of play for an injury to a player or for any
other reason beyond the control of the players shall be
a deductible allowance. The Umpire at the bowler’s end
will inform the fielding Captain, the batsman and his
fellow Umpire of any time allowances as and when they
arise and the scorers at the earliest opportunity. (This
matter will not be subject to retrospective negotiation)"

Play was stopped for a reason beyond the control of the players. Now the rule clumsily only accounts for a team that is actually batting but any court would imply that where a team is prevented from batting a second time for a reason beyond their control and therefore able to make up the over rate that the umpire should apply the deductible allowance principle in such a case to that team. What that deductible allowance should be is a moot point. However what should have happened here is that the umpires when consulting the rule book as to what they should do in the situation should have sought advice before signing off on the scorecard and thus the implication of the over rate.

In my view this is a mistake by the umpires. The umpire's decision is final in matters of play but not in matters where they are applying a disciplinary penalty which this really is. Throughout the rules where discipinary rules apply such as player penalties there is a clear right of appeal.

Ultimately any right of appeal usually comes with a time limit. Usually something like 14 or 21 days but here it could be said before the start of the final round of county matches because of the impact of the any points restoration on those matches.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: AGod (IP Logged)
Date: 12 October, 2017 12:34

Yes, any rational court would indeed infer what you suggest, Middleman.

Re: Arrowgate part 2
Posted by: Jonathan Winsky (IP Logged)
Date: 12 October, 2017 19:22

Quote:
AGod
JW - I cannot understand, for the life of me, why Middx should be on the receiving end of resentment, should the ECB decide to relegate only Warwickshire?
They, surely to goodness, could not contend that they did not deserve to be relegated?

Why would anybody else care?

Although a reversion to nine teams in division one seems like a perfect compromise due to it meaning that Middlesex and Somerset would both retain their top-flight status, I fear that some people would make claims such as that ECB are manipulating the county structure to favour us, that it is unlikely they would have done that for a county based at a non-Test ground, and that it is unlikely it would happen in any other season or in any other sport. The fact having an even amount of teams in each division makes the fixturelist run better and enables all division one sides to play each other twice means that there would hardly any obvious reasons for a reversion other than so we can be kept in division one. If a reversion takes place, we would probably receive less resentment from Somerset and beyond that we would if Somerset go down instead of us, although as I have said, I doubt a reversion would be received entirely well on the county circuit.

As it happens, I would prefer division one to include 9 or even 10 teams, although ECB would be moving the goalposts if they suddenly make such a change now.

Somerset have said they will take legal action if the result of our appeal causes them to be relegated, so it could get very complicated considering the timeframe of legal action may run past the date when ECB hope to publish the 2018 fixtures, and could possibly run into the 2018 season.

A lot of people on social media are saying ECB created a mess by not dealing with this issue shortly after the end of the Surrey v Middlesex match.

Current Page: 1 of 6
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