|
|
Post by houghy49 on Mar 15, 2013 12:49:16 GMT 10
So, it seems that with 24 hours to go until the Div 3 Women's final kicks off, Springvale have been informed by BV that their Preliminary Final in fact finished 10 minutes early last week and that some sort of protest has been put in from Footscray.
The Div 3 Grand Final is due to kick off at 10am tomorrow and we (Springvale) have now been informed (this morning) that the girls have to play the remaining 10 minutes against Footscray at 9am tomorrow - with the final still due to be played at 10am.
This is an absolute disgrace!!!
A protest was put in 5 days ago, yet BV can only notify BOTH clubs 24 hours prior of the outcome. Springvale weren't even aware that a protest had been put in till receiving the email this morning informing them of the outcome.
Better yet, we have been told that we can ONLY use the players that were listed on the line up last week and no one else!
All good and well when all your players are available. We have 2 players unavailable from last week so will more than likely be forced to play with 7 players for 10 minutes and ultimately, may end up sitting on the sidelines watching the 10am grand final instead of playing.
The process that BV have taken during the week in relation to this protest is beyond a joke and those that have been involved in this should be ashamed! A simply phone call, or email, or better yet, perhaps someone can answer the several emails/phone calls that have been sent/made to BV this morning!
Nope it's all too hard.... nothing has changed!!! :mad:
|
|
|
|
Post by houghy49 on Mar 15, 2013 12:51:38 GMT 10
Oh, and I forgot to mention that somehow, AFTER our coach had signed the match card (with no mention of the protest on it, or in the scorebooks), the match card has appeared at the BV office with the protest written as clear as day on it.
Something doesn't sit right for me.....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Mar 15, 2013 13:17:11 GMT 10
What happens if there is a protest during the protest game? Who plays the GF and would you even want to? Would the other team even want to?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Mar 15, 2013 13:52:10 GMT 10
Well little one, you have some ripping points raised. But what I find ludicrous is that not knowing who the pitcher maybe, that same pitcher could very well be fronting up again in 40 minutes. This protest should have benn priotised and dealt with prior to WEednesday and have the additional play on the Thursday for the betterment of everybody. Then the umpire should be hauled over the coals for allowing if true the protest to be written in later after the Springvale Manager had signed the card. Sounds like a true clusterf%^k.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Mar 15, 2013 14:02:34 GMT 10
I'm going a hypothetical in here - it won't happen, but...
What would happen if one of the pitchers was a junior. If they had thrown their limit last week, would they be allowed to pitch in the game this week?
If they were part way through their limit last week before the game was ended by the umpire, or replaced on the mound, would they be allowed to throw in both the 9am and 10am start this week?
Also, what happens if it's raining tomorrow at 9am?
|
|
|
|
Post by wearnie52 on Mar 15, 2013 14:09:22 GMT 10
Can confirm oldmanriver that the game will continue tomorrow morning at 9am.
Can also confirm that the opposing team did add the protest to the card after our coach had signed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rouser42 on Mar 15, 2013 14:50:35 GMT 10
I quote from the Vic Summer league playing conditions.
Page 14
"Details of the protest must be lodged in writing and be in the hands of Baseball
Victoria within forty-eight (48) hours of completion of the game, accompanied
by a fifty ($50.00) dollar fee. The protest shall state the reason that the protest
is being entered and include, where relevant, reference to the Rules of the
Association, Rules of Baseball, By-Laws or Playing Conditions."
If this rule was followed then why were clubs not notified until less than 24 hours before the game is supposed to be completed
|
|
|
|
Post by 4crownies on Mar 15, 2013 15:28:18 GMT 10
Can confirm oldmanriver that the game will continue tomorrow morning at 9am. Can also confirm that the opposing team did add the protest to the card after our coach had signed it. There is also a 48 hour window afterwards to lodge a protest, which was done on sunday. I didn't however know that a Footscray person had added to the card until 10 minutes ago. Regardless of the card, the protest was still lodged and rightly so. The game should have been played out there and then |
|
|
|
Post by wearnie52 on Mar 15, 2013 15:30:02 GMT 10
Not according to BV crownies. If nothing was mentioned on game day, then no protest can be considered. That is my understanding? Would appreciate if someone could confirm that.
BV told me today that the protest they went off was from the card only. They told me no other protest (on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or any other day) was lodged.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Mar 15, 2013 15:35:24 GMT 10
Why didn't the umpire realise the error of his/her way and rectify the problem at the time of the game or did nobody realise what the time was at. It sounds like a simple case of unskilled labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by houghy49 on Mar 15, 2013 15:46:37 GMT 10
What gets me in all of this is the nerve of the person to add a protest to the card AFTER it had been signed by the opposition coach.
This person has been around baseball long enough to know better and I can tell you now, I'm about as p!ssed as I can get about this situation. It's a low act to say the least....
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 15:52:47 GMT 10
Through further communication from the SLC, it appears the decision to complete the game tomorrow was not a result of a Footscray protest, but a determination by the Competition's Administrator.
Part of his responsibility is to take action where it's deemed the correct playing conditions were not applied. For example, where an illegal player is played, the CA can take action against the offending team, without any protest being lodged.
Regardless of the protest (or lack of) in this circumstance, upon receiving the match card yesterday, which clearly states the game was concluded 10 minutes early, the CA was obliged to ensure the breach was rectified.
I know this may not quell some of the frustration regarding the lack of communication between BV and the clubs, but I'm confident it's the correct call, considering the error made in calling the game early last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4crownies on Mar 15, 2013 15:56:23 GMT 10
Not according to BV crownies. If nothing was mentioned on game day, then no protest can be considered. That is my understanding? Would appreciate if someone could confirm that. BV told me today that the protest they went off was from the card only. They told me no other protest (on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or any other day) was lodged. PM me your email address and i will forward you the email |
|
|
|
Post by 4crownies on Mar 15, 2013 16:00:28 GMT 10
What gets me in all of this is the nerve of the person to add a protest to the card AFTER it had been signed by the opposition coach. This person has been around baseball long enough to know better and I can tell you now, I'm about as p!ssed as I can get about this situation. It's a low act to say the least.... Why was the person allowed to have the card? And, why didn't the umpire inform Springvale that it had been edited? |
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Mar 15, 2013 16:10:17 GMT 10
Au eagle, you can polish this all you like.....but it's still a turd!
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 16:23:16 GMT 10
Wyatt33, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by houghy49 on Mar 15, 2013 16:26:02 GMT 10
Through further communication from the SLC, it appears the decision to complete the game tomorrow was not a result of a Footscray protest, but a determination by the Competition's Administrator. Part of his responsibility is to take action where it's deemed the correct playing conditions were not applied. For example, where an illegal player is played, the CA can take action against the offending team, without any protest being lodged. Regardless of the protest (or lack of) in this circumstance, upon receiving the match card yesterday, which clearly states the game was concluded 10 minutes early, the CA was obliged to ensure the breach was rectified. I know this may not quell some of the frustration regarding the lack of communication between BV and the clubs, but I'm confident it's the correct call, considering the error made in calling the game early last week. So BV are lying then??? It's in black and white from BV that a protest was lodged and upheld. They have clearly stated it in their email. |
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 16:50:15 GMT 10
Sorry Jade, I think I might have worded my last post poorly, perhaps even incorrectly... The communication I received did not state the CA used his power in this instance, only that he could... Questions regarding the validity of the protest had been raised, and it was noted that regardless of the protest's validity, the CA would be obliged to act.
Apologies for the confusion... Emails are flying think and fast at the moment and my skimming failed me.
|
|
|
|
Post by gilmore on Mar 15, 2013 16:57:14 GMT 10
I was just wondering did the umpire call the game off after footscray had batted and springvale came to bat with a 1 run lead? So if the game was called off because springvale was ahead and was probably going to bat for 10 mins and then it would of been time and game any way.
Was it the start of a new inning or was it time and game when springvale came to bat? If it was called time and game when springvale were batting then shouldn't springvale have to bat for 10mins tomoz.
|
|
|
|
Post by headinsand on Mar 15, 2013 17:08:23 GMT 10
aueagle30, I appreciate your efforts in trying to hold back the "tsunami" of complaint.
The organization you volunteer for has failed you this time.
And I think you know exactly what wyatt33 is getting at!
Poor decision's are nothing more than poor decision's.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Mar 15, 2013 17:21:47 GMT 10
Through further communication from the SLC, it appears the decision to complete the game tomorrow was not a result of a Footscray protest, but a determination by the Competition's Administrator. Part of his responsibility is to take action where it's deemed the correct playing conditions were not applied. For example, where an illegal player is played, the CA can take action against the offending team, without any protest being lodged. Regardless of the protest (or lack of) in this circumstance, upon receiving the match card yesterday, which clearly states the game was concluded 10 minutes early, the CA was obliged to ensure the breach was rectified. I know this may not quell some of the frustration regarding the lack of communication between BV and the clubs, but I'm confident it's the correct call, considering the error made in calling the game early last week. ' Just wondering what steps were taken to make sure it was not just an input error on behalf of the umpire/scorer that entered the data on the match card? It just seems strange that not one of the 18+ players or coaches/managers picked up of the shortfall of 10 minutes until well after the game was done. From what I was told the protest only came about after the match card was viewed. As a manager of a team that has time restrictions I find it very hard to believe that Footscray had no idea that the game had finished early when they were down. One of the things that adds to a times game is the tactics that come in towards the end. 2 umpires, 18+ players, managers, scorers and all the spectators never picked it up.? Not likely. |
|
|
|
Post by Spice on Mar 15, 2013 20:54:38 GMT 10
Here's another ridiculous event from this season!
Bonbeach played Berwick in a game just after the Xmas break. The game was fixtured for a Sunday. Without notification as per BV By Laws, the fixture was changed to the Saturday. We found out by accident and the Comp Co-Ordinator was contacted via e-mail on the Monday night asking for it to be changed back to the Sunday. We had 40 players unavailable that Saturday.
Without a response from that BV employee I called his mobile no less than 30 times over the next 4 days without 1 single acknowledgement of a call. It wasn't until Christine was contacted again and she contacted that employee of BV that he called me back. His response was that he was waiting for an answer from Berwick.
BV's employee didn't even contact Berwick until approx 4pm on the Friday. Then told me that according to BV rules we were not able to forfeit a game played by the 1sts (That's a new one). We played under protest.
7 WEEKS, 2 P&S MEETINGS AND 2 SUMMER LEAGUE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND WE STILL DIDN'T HAVE A RESPONSE TO THE PROTEST.
RIDICULOUS!
If a volunteer was doing that job with such a lack of expertise, courtesy and common sense they would have it taken away from them. How are we as a Baseball community letting BV get away with continuing this person's employment?
|
|
mandi
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by mandi on Mar 15, 2013 22:08:42 GMT 10
As the coach of springvale div 3 womens team i can cleary tell you and i will swear in any court of law hat the game was completed in even innings, the score at the time was 11-10 to springvale and at the time of the umpire calling time and game NO ONE questioned the time in my presence. Both teams shook hands and cleaned out their dugouts and continued to have their team discussions. I was then presented with the match sheet that had written under protest
"dh for pitcher"
this was the only protest written on the sheet when i signed this. The sheet was then handed to the umpire and that is the end of the game in my eyes. No one had even mentioned the fact the game was finished early.
At no stage was i aware that a second protest was written on the match sheet prior to it being handed in.
I would like to say here and now that i am proud of my team and my club and i feel for my players to have to go through this the night before they are possibly about to play a grand final.
|
|
|
|
Post by parentofone on Mar 16, 2013 9:37:34 GMT 10
What gets me in all of this is the nerve of the person to add a protest to the card AFTER it had been signed by the opposition coach. This person has been around baseball long enough to know better and I can tell you now, I'm about as p!ssed as I can get about this situation. It's a low act to say the least.... poor princess....I remember going back prior to the last ABL season you being up on your high horse about something or other in relation to game scheduling....and here it is 6 months later and your still banging on. Oh dear. |
|
|
|
Post by houghy49 on Mar 16, 2013 22:41:22 GMT 10
What gets me in all of this is the nerve of the person to add a protest to the card AFTER it had been signed by the opposition coach. This person has been around baseball long enough to know better and I can tell you now, I'm about as p!ssed as I can get about this situation. It's a low act to say the least.... poor princess....I remember going back prior to the last ABL season you being up on your high horse about something or other in relation to game scheduling....and here it is 6 months later and your still banging on. Oh dear. I'm sorry, but what has a team who has blatantely cheated by putting a protest on a match card AFTER it has been signed got to do with a rescheduled ABL game?  |
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 17, 2013 12:23:46 GMT 10
houghy49, I think it's time to dial back the hysteria and bring some measure to the issue.
Labeling other teams and coaches as 'cheats' is unsavory and deserving of a retraction and apology.
In regard to your issue of the protest being noted after the Springvale coach had signed the match card, under Playing Condition 24 (Disputes and Protests), there is no requirement for the protest to be noted on the match report prior to the opposition manager signing the card.
In the instance of the game ending prior to the schedule finishing time, its likely it might not be noted until after the conclusion of the game, possibly not even until the match card is presented for signing. If this has occured, its more than reasonable for the protest to then be noted on the match report, even if signed previously by the opposition manager.
If the protest was noted after both coaches had already signed the match report, then a case can be made that the protest procedure has not been followed correctly, but I think it's an unreasonable leap to level a charge of cheating without further evidence of misconduct.
While we must ensure proper procedures are followed, its important to remember that regardless of the process followed in this instance (which, according to the SLC's ruling, is not in question), the match report notes an incorrect finishing time and the Competition's Administrator would have been obliged to act. Either way, the outcome of completing the game would have been reached.
If you have further information regarding the conduct of any official, particularly information that hasn't already been established and that you believe is outside the spirit of acceptable conduct, I'd encourage you to bring it to the attention of the CA or the SLC and allow due process to take its course before publicly judging those involved.
The integrity of those involved in the administration of sport is an extremely important issue, as has been highlighted in several high profile instances of late. Yes, we must hold those in charge to account, but we must equally protect them from being publicly judged without evidence of wrongdoing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bundysundy on Mar 17, 2013 21:57:50 GMT 10
poor princess....I remember going back prior to the last ABL season you being up on your high horse about something or other in relation to game scheduling....and here it is 6 months later and your still banging on. Oh dear. I'm sorry, but what has a team who has blatantely cheated by putting a protest on a match card AFTER it has been signed got to do with a rescheduled ABL game? I think you should be careful who you go round calling a cheat. If you think you cant protest a game after the card has been signed you obviously don't know the rules as clearly pointed out by Auseagle. You can protest a game well after the card has been signed so its irrelevant that the protest was added to the card after the Springvale coach signed it. And as we have seen since the protest was proved correct. |
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Mar 17, 2013 22:25:26 GMT 10
Not really interested in the actual example, but clearly there is an issue with notification of protest.
It was always my understanding that a protest must be lodged at the time of the incident. Going back over a game and protesting later seems like a pretty bad situation.
As far as signing the card and adding a protest later, surely a better system must be put into place. Regardless of the protest, or the time of the protest, if its going on the match card, it needs to be sighted and signed by both managers, and the umpire(s). If its going in after the fact (i.e. after the match card is signed sealed and delivered), then a copy of the protest should be forwarded to the opposition club.
Having a club not even know there is a protest that has been lodged shouldn't be acceptable within the league guidelines. (IMHO).
To be clear, I have no vested interest in this case, and do not have an association with Springvale. Additionally, I'm certainly not accusing anyone of cheating. I just think the rules need to be checked to stop clubs being put in a position that they don't even know there is a protest in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by houghy49 on Mar 17, 2013 23:58:52 GMT 10
I understand the rules and I understand that a protest can be put through after the game cards have been signed. BUT, there is a difference between putting a protest through in writing ON the match card after it's been signed as opposed to putting it through, in writing after the game has been completed.
Two things have come of this.
1. A team has clearly added a protest to a match card after it has been signed by umpires/coaches - I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure I know the rules and this is not within them.
2. The process BV have taken to inform Springvale of said protest is absolutely pathetic. To inform a club/team 24 hours prior to their grand final they have have been involved in a protest (that they were completely unaware of), and that it has been upheld and that their team has to then play out a 10 minute game to decide who will be going through to the grand final, is appaling to say the least.
If this protest was done within the rules and both clubs were informed of the process, it wouldn't be an issue. Simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Mar 18, 2013 7:05:07 GMT 10
From what I have gone back over and read, the overall tone of the entire argument does not rest around the situation of ten minutes needing to be replayed, though that has caused a touch of debate, however more the notification side of the matter.
At the end of the day, the team that was ahead on the scoreboard and was declared the winner on the match card on the Saturday, was not even notified until the following Friday that there was an issue, and that there were consequences to be addressed 24 hours in the future.
I'll give you a scenario that happened on Friday night. One player, who works in the hospitality industry, was working Friday, and when one of the competing teams on Saturday turned up at the hotel she works at for a team dinner, it was only the player was told of the whole situation.
On the Friday night, about 13 hours before she was supposed to play in the 'continued' match.
That's totally unacceptable, and unfair.
If, as Mr Holmes noted, that the the SLC or members thereof knew of a protest on the Monday, surely there should be some notification to the clubs in question that the protest has been noted by the governing body/bodies. That one side didn't even know until Friday that a protest existed, whether it be dismissed or upheld, is unfair. It would not be accepted in a high mens grade (an incident from Wednesday night seemed resolved within a short turn around - Australia Post must have been back in form!) and shouldn't be accepted in Womens Division Three.
I do struggle to accept the concept of 'the post was late' as an reason for a delay - certainly it isn't an excuse for a failure to notify one of the competing clubs. How come if this protest was known on Monday, why, by Wednesday evening, with no paperwork having been sighted and time starting to run out between a decision and Saturday, did no one seemingly take any initiative and start making calls to find out from the umpire, and the two clubs, what happened on the day? It seems we put a fair bit of faith in Australia Post to deliver on Thursday. What if they hadn't?
Moving forward, perhaps BV/SLA needs to reevaluate how Finals protests, and I'd suggest a protest in the final week, maybe fortnight of the regular season, are handled, as an outcome and the ability to let the respective parties given the appropriate time to put things in place so they are not disadvantaged. Further, perhaps the process of signing match cards needs to be reevaluated as well, with the losing team's manager signing it first and being able to complete any protest they deem relevant to be placed on the card, before the winning manager and then the umpires put their signatures to the paper. What happened last week was completely below an acceptable standard of Professional practice (IMHO) and should never be allowed to occur again.
The stress that several members from a club were put through on Friday night was undeserved and unfair, especially given the work they not only put in over the season, but in the week leading up to the flagship day on the Womens Baseball calendar. The players too deserved better.
|
|
