Shield Final - venue dispute
- Thread starter Freo Big Fella
- Start date
- Tagged users None
A rule is a rule.
Nope because Victoria finished first and the rule says Victoria win with a draw.
If they were going to upgrade a ground it would be junction which they want to do a major upgrade to, not stuff it up with small fixes leaving it as borderline unplayable, if the funding had been given then this final would have been there.
The facts are it wasn't and Cricket Australia has decided that the game must be at Hobart or Canberra, blaming CV for not wanting to do a half arsed job is silly
- Banned
- #181
So I take it you never whinged when WCE had to host finals at the MCG because the rule stated that a final had to be played in Melbourne every week of the finals?
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 7,858
- 9,080
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I do find it hard to understand how there couldn't be a ground in regional Victoria that could be used. Seems odd that one of Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo at least couldn't have been brought up to standard.
It's stupidity all round with this fiasco
It's stupidity all round with this fiasco
- Banned
- #183
This
I'm not blaming CV- but as you said it was a CV decision to not do a half arsed job (and get a Wagga Wagga standard stadium for this season).
So the world cup is not the reason why no stadium was available.
And hence the rules state that WA gets to host
- Sep 27, 2012
- 28,112
- 55,923
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers Tottenham Hotspur
Yes it it, because our first class stadium has been commandeered for the World Cup, what part of that don't you understand?
There is no rule (since you are so fond of rules!) that says you have to have more than one first class stadium in your state, as you well know as Western Australia also only has one.
And in the end WC ended up hosting their finals in Melbourne as per the agreed rules.
The rules were eventually changed but not right before a final.
Likewise the rule clearly states that the WACA should host this match. Cricket Victoria will obviously still win in the event of a draw.
What part of Cricket Victoria had six years to prepare another ground (like in Bendigo or Ballarat) to meet the standard set by Wagga Wagga, are you struggling with?
Given this timeframe it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Cricket Victoria could have done that if they wanted. Cricket Victoria had extremely good reasons not to do so and I agree with their decision.
But CV had ample time to prepare a ground and their failure to do so means that by the rules (which are designed for exceptional circumstances) mean that the WACA gets to host
- Sep 27, 2012
- 28,112
- 55,923
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers Tottenham Hotspur
You can't just wave a magic wand and make a ground first class standard in a matter of days, it takes time and money and quite a bit of work as it will mean either additions or changes to facilities and/or the playing surface and practice areas.
It has been known for a long time that the MCG is our only first class facility and anyone who didn't know must have been hiding under a rock if they didn't notice we have had to play our last three Shield matches interstate due to the unavailability of the MCG. This is why I find the whole "Oh we thought the Junction Oval was going to be used" coming from the WACA to be totally disingenuous.
- Sep 27, 2012
- 28,112
- 55,923
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers Tottenham Hotspur
They are playing footy already in Ballarat and Bendigo, therefore not suitable for cricket!
Six years is plenty of time to meet the same standards that Wagga Wagga, Bankstown, Glenelg, Alice Springs and Newcastle are able to meet
so, as of today, Traeger park is set up for footy.
Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong have hosted a NAB challenge game, whereas Traeger park was hosting a shield game 2 days ago.
We're talking a multiple year timeframe.
If Cricket Victoria had wanted to use Bendigo for cricket they could have done so - and yes that would have involved the local Bendigo football league and the NAB Cup not getting to use the ground.
so, the world cup fixture, showing where finals would be played was released 6 years ago?
so, we knew we'd be hosting the shield final 6 years ago?
honestly, i don't understand why we wouldn't try and play it in Alice Springs, they seem to like playing up there, and it's not like many people are going to travel interstate for it, even if it is only Tassie.
5 years of lobbying - hard lobbying to get the outcome CV needed.
- Sep 27, 2012
- 28,112
- 55,923
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers Tottenham Hotspur
It's my understanding of the rules that you would waive your right to host the final if due to your ineptitude you can't provide a venue (i.e. the groundsmen let beetles eat all the grass or something) not if your ground has been taken away from you for the World Cup, surely you can see the difference between the two things.
Practice Facilities off the main ground = tick meet the requirements
Practice Facilities using any aspect of main ground = cross does not meet
We knew we would host the world cup six years ago. Cricket Victoria thus knew that the MCG would be unavailable for February and March 2015.
Everyone in the country knew the MCG would host the final or at minimum the semi finals. It's got nearly twice the capacity of any other cricket ground in Australia or New Zealand.
I'm going to back the western royboy 's timeline for the new first class standards coming in around three years ago
Which will mean that roughly years ago, Cricket Victoria knew that they would not have access to the MCG for the second half of this shield season and that the Junction Oval would not be a valid alternative.
If CV had wanted to do so, they had ample time to prepare another ground in Victoria for this shield season.
Bumpswithagrin - the rule does not say anything about a world cup.
It says if the hosting state can not provide a venue, the team that finishes second will get to host.
Given how long Cricket Victoria have had to prepare for this, they can't use the unavailability of the MCG as an excuse to be exempted from the rule
Yeah that was a bit deceitful of me, but it made a point.
