With respect you need to read the thread - all the questions have been answered in depth.
Shield Final - venue dispute
- Thread starter Freo Big Fella
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Sweet. will do later. I thought it was a 27-post thread when I opened but my enthusiasm to sift through it dampened when I realised there was an extra digit on the end.
CV have as many first class venues as any other state in the country bar NSW, Qld, SA and NT (OK, NT isn't a state). And maybe WA.
Vic has as many FC grounds as Tas or ACT (or maybe WA). That much is true.
The rule is wrong and a neutral venue (maybe only in jursidictions without a team, so Alice Springs or Canberra) should be permitted, but once in place even stupid rules should be applied until officially removed - not just discarded on a whim.
- Sep 27, 2012
- 28,097
- 55,533
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers Tottenham Hotspur
WA only has one first class venue, the WACA ground.
The rule wasn't discarded on a whim and it's disingenuous to say so. For goodness sake, the World Cup only comes round once every 20 years or so and who knew Victoria were going to make the Shield final let alone finish on top and get the hosting rights? It's an unusual circumstance that means it's perfectly reasonable for the game to be played at a neutral venue.
And with six years to prepare the WACA could have prepared an alternative first class ground.
A state being unable to provide a ground is very unusual (this is the first time it has happened) so that argument doesn't hold water.
This rule was designed for unusual circumstances
Seems ridiculous that a state should have to spend millions of dollars on a ground, considering how unlikely it is they will host a home final for one year. If they don't host the final it's a massive waste of money.
- Banned
- #282
Can you point me to the test in the rules under the heading "perfectly reasonable alternate venues"?
As far as I can see, the rules seem pretty clear. Top team gets to host at a suitable venue in home state, if they can't provide one then second placed team gets to provide a suitable venue in their home state. Full stop.
Fairness, equity, logic, even good sense are all wonderful concepts which should underpin the writing of rules and laws. Once written however the issue is what do the rules say? The rules that all participants agreed to play under...
Your personal view on what's perfectly reasonable is entirely irrelevant. No matter how sensible it may seem.
If CA is just going to change its rules, on a whim, whenever it feels like it, then what's the point of rules?
By the way, on a similar theme in football, isn't it perfectly reasonable that an interstate side finishing on top of the ladder should host the AFL Grand Final? Assuming they have a suitable "first class" venue?
I mean making them play in the home town of their inferior opponent would be unfair. Surely my suggestion is perfectly reasonable?
Maybe the AFL should override their rules
That Victoria "waived" their right to host is your personal view on this too (unless their is a definition in the CA rules of what constitutes "waiving" that I haven't seen). As many others have argued, there is a case that not having a second suitable venue in Vic is not them Waiving their right. They have a venue, its not available through no fault of theirs (and their is no CA stipulation to say they have to have a 2nd first class venue), so they then can consider an alternative so as not to have to waive their right. If they cant find an alternative or don't want to find one, then WA gets offered the opportunity to host.
Which they couldn't- Hobart isn't in Victoria
“The team that finished first on the points table ... shall earn the right to host the final at a suitable first-class venue within its State,” it says.
“Should the team waive this right, the choice shall be offered to the team that finished second.
Again. Its how you decide to interpret it. You could look at the above (from OP) that yes Vic earn the right to host the final at a suitable first class venue within the state of Victoria (which nobody disputes they did). But with the only suitable one unavailable (and again nowhere does it say you need to provide two first-class venues), nowhere does it say that not having a venue available waives their right to host it elsewhere. It merely says if they do waive their right then WA will be offered the choice to host it.
“Should the team waive this right, the choice shall be offered to the team that finished second.
Again. Its how you decide to interpret it. You could look at the above (from OP) that yes Vic earn the right to host the final at a suitable first class venue within the state of Victoria (which nobody disputes they did). But with the only suitable one unavailable (and again nowhere does it say you need to provide two first-class venues), nowhere does it say that not having a venue available waives their right to host it elsewhere. It merely says if they do waive their right then WA will be offered the choice to host it.
Don't understand what the sandgropers are so upset about. Victoria qualified for the right to have the final. Because of a once in 20 year event they don't have a home ground to play at so they have the right to try and find an alternative venue. Get over it WA and concentrate on winning the final - you weren't good enough to host it.
- Banned
- #290
We were beaten over the head with "the rules" twice this year when we asked why, having qualified top, we missed out on 2 finals when we had a ground available.
We are now sticklers for the rules ....
We were beaten over the head with "the rules" twice this year when we asked why, having qualified top, we missed out on 2 finals when we had a ground available.
We are now sticklers for the rules ....
No you weren't. Both the One Day Comp and Big Bash had a designated venue to host the Final going into the start of competition. All teams new beforehand when and where the final would be played.
- Banned
- #293
Yes, they were designated IN THE RULES ....
And IN THE RULES Victoria's right was to nominate a venue in Victoria or the second place side gets to nominate a venue in its home state.
You can't tell us we were buggared by hard and fast rules set before the comp started and then tell us that other rules set before the competition aren't hard and fast because they aren't fair. FFS ..
No before the Big Bash season started CA declared Canberra as the host of the Final due to some venues being unavailable. Also the One Day comp has been played at a single set of venues for the past 2 years. What next you think if Australia fail to reach the World Cup Final the highest placed team should then host instead of the MCG?
And years ago CA decided that if a team couldn't host the final in the state- that the team that finished second would host.
No exemptions for world cups (and it was known six years ago that the MCG would be unavailable).
- Banned
- #296
Mate, are you seriously this logic challenged? I mean if you are just trolling that's ok but if you can't see the logic flaws in your line of argument, well....
Last edited:
You have nothing to cry about over the Big Bash or One Day Comp as the rules at the start of competition applied at the end of competition. Whether WA have been wronged now over the Shield Final doesn't all of a sudden mean they wronged back then.
- Banned
- #298
Hahaha ... Of course not but we are discussing the rights and wrongs of this decision and I have a consistently been using the early season examples of occasions when the rules could just as easily have been varied for reasons of logic and fairness...
And CA were all "we understand the disappointment of WA fans but the rules were set before the comp... blah blah". Now suddenly the rules don't matter. That is our entire point...
We understand that we finished second and therefore we should just cop it. But we had to cop it when we finished first too. Twice. It's grating...
Either the rules are the rules or CA can vary them when it feels a fairer outcome is obtained. At present it's simply making s**t up as it goes along and we are all apparently supposed to cop it without criticism.
Anyone think the rank amateurish that seems to run right through CA is one reason that cricket in general in Australia is not exactly on fire as a sport ...
And the rules for the shield final were established years ago- as was the MCG's unavailability.
Making WA playing in Sydney and Canberra was correct.
It's clear that the CA Regulations never considered the possibility that has arisen on this occasion. They should have and provided for it, albeit the situation we have found ourselves in as being a one off. It's ironic that provided for it in the BBL, but didn't in the Shield.
As the regulation reads, in my view WA have a case. The short turnaround time between the end of the last round meant there was virtually no time to mount any form of debate / legal case. Common sense has probably prevailed although even for a one off I can't understand why you would play our flagship domestic long form game at what I'd effectively a neutral venue, with the potential crowd for four days is probably <100. From memory the crowd last year at Manuka was pretty reasonable on the weekends. The Vics obviously won't care, but a bit of a crowd provides some atmosphere.
As the regulation reads, in my view WA have a case. The short turnaround time between the end of the last round meant there was virtually no time to mount any form of debate / legal case. Common sense has probably prevailed although even for a one off I can't understand why you would play our flagship domestic long form game at what I'd effectively a neutral venue, with the potential crowd for four days is probably <100. From memory the crowd last year at Manuka was pretty reasonable on the weekends. The Vics obviously won't care, but a bit of a crowd provides some atmosphere.
