|
Post by thehotcorner on Mar 14, 2013 22:57:57 GMT 10
Collision was hard but FAIR. If you truly believe that, you seriously need re-evaluate the way you view the game.
|
|
|
Post by trober on Mar 15, 2013 5:37:00 GMT 10
Collision was hard but FAIR. If you truly believe that, you seriously need re-evaluate the way you view the game. Agreed. Nothing fair about it. Dogs act
|
|
|
Post by oldracer on Mar 15, 2013 6:57:32 GMT 10
Had a closer look, and I see why it is displaying that way. If you click on details link in the Game 2 Box scores, you will notice that players are listed in there, despite the game 2 days away. You will also notice it shows the date as 16th Mar.3 Some has screwed up entering game 1 data of the score sheet and mistakenly entered player names in game 2 area instead of Game 1. The system is thinking that because of it the game must have been played and that is why Game 3 is showing as the next upcoming date. They have done in the Game 2 of the Geel v Blackburn game as well. As usual, system is fine, problem lies in the human imput. thanks Goblin, on the ball as always
|
|
|
Post by 4crownies on Mar 15, 2013 7:44:14 GMT 10
Anyone here from the pennant committee know the result of the protest Footscray lodged in the Womens D3 game last weekend? Can't get an answer from the league, and here we are 25 hours away from game time
|
|
toot
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by toot on Mar 15, 2013 8:12:50 GMT 10
Been around the game a long time to know that when a catcher is waiting for the throw to come in for a play at the plate it doesn't have his mask on. If we are gonna talk about dogs acts lets discuss david ayers actions of taking out the winning run running home. Makes contact with him. Unsportsmanlike at its worse. Oh and let's not forget the fitzroy supporter throwing an elbow followed up by 3 punches to the umpires head after the game
|
|
|
Post by baseless on Mar 15, 2013 8:29:22 GMT 10
I am hearing all the nasty things that went on at the Willy/ Fitz game but NO ONE is reported?? How many umpires at the game. Surely punching and kicking cannot be condoned.
|
|
stk09
Junior Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by stk09 on Mar 15, 2013 8:46:30 GMT 10
Was planning on finishing a research report on Saturday but having read the last 8-10 posts, bugger that... I am heading down to Williamstown v Fitzroy..
|
|
|
Post by oldracer on Mar 15, 2013 9:15:52 GMT 10
Been around the game a long time to know that when a catcher is waiting for the throw to come in for a play at the plate it doesn't have his mask on. If we are gonna talk about dogs acts lets discuss david ayers actions of taking out the winning run running home. Makes contact with him. Unsportsmanlike at its worse. Oh and let's not forget the fitzroy supporter throwing an elbow followed up by 3 punches to the umpires head after the game Toot have a proof read BEFORE you hit the post button, last sentence is about all that's comprehendable
|
|
|
Post by thehotcorner on Mar 15, 2013 10:08:45 GMT 10
If we are gonna talk about dogs acts lets discuss david ayers actions of taking out the winning run running home. You mean Ayres running down from the mound to cover the plate and having the runner "chest" him as he crossed the plate? Like you said, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
|
|
bp34
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by bp34 on Mar 15, 2013 10:12:51 GMT 10
Toot, don't know what game you where watching but it surely wasnt the same fitz v willy game I was.. Yes the catcher didnt have his mask on but the collision was certainly NOT fair, nor in the spirit of the game. I'm all for taking out a catcher 'fairly' with the shoulder tucked in and both feet on the ground, but not with both arms making contact with the catchers head whilst airborne... Get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off on here.
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Mar 15, 2013 10:18:16 GMT 10
If we are gonna talk about dogs acts lets discuss david ayers actions of taking out the winning run running home. You mean Ayres running down from the mound to cover the plate and having the runner "chest" him as he crossed the plate? Like you said, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Wasnt the picher tossed, story I heard said it went down just like this.
|
|
|
Post by gj on Mar 15, 2013 10:18:41 GMT 10
Reports I'm getting is that the runner crash tackled the catcher head high. No wonder a brawl started. I was always under the impression catchers were taught to keep their masks on if there was a lay at the plate. Racer, your sons are catchers.Correct or not? Big issue as mentioned is why no one got tossed. Runner at plate should have been number 1, and then a few more. Disgraceful episode with umpire. Will club get sanctioned as well as supporter?
|
|
|
Post by trober on Mar 15, 2013 10:37:16 GMT 10
I was avoiding throwing names out ther toot, but Ayres was ejected and has a 2 game suspension as a result. I can throw some names out too,
|
|
Camov
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by Camov on Mar 15, 2013 10:43:52 GMT 10
Morning Gentlemen,
To try and throw some water on the flames here re Willy vs Fitzroy.
Firstly, lets not let a few incidents obscure the fact that wednesdays game was a fantastic clash that showcased 2 truly superb outings from Adam Rowe and Jason Lester. The game was hard fought and both teams could well have walked away with the win.
Having not seen the play at the plate (sliding into 3rd thanks dennis ;-) ) I can only take the opinion of the homeplate umpire, who watched the play unfold and Did not see any grounds to eject the runner. (The debate flaring up here probably gives a bit of credence to the discussion re removing the collision play from home plate, but that's another thread all together.)
The ensuing bench clear is a a disappointing moment for both teams and something that does nothing for the growth of the game and the fostering of inter club relations. Again, i think this is something that could be looked at re plays at the plate, as often its an escalation that results from players initially just coming in to check on their fellow team mates as was the case here.
As for David Ayres Getting Ejected at the end of the game. as a pitcher i can feel his frustration and I would envision that looking back he regrets the momentary boil over which i believe has cost him a 2 game suspension?
Finally the incident with a spectator assaulting the umpire is completely unacceptable.
One individual however is not a representation of a club and one persons actions should not be the sole responsibly of an organisation.
I look forward to hosting Fitzroy this saturday at the wolf dome and i hope both clubs can put the incidents of Wednesday night behind them, get out on the track and let the baseball do the talking.
Go Wolves.
|
|
|
Post by paulbrown on Mar 15, 2013 11:41:10 GMT 10
Long time reader, first time.......
Camov, well said. Awesome game, Rowe has been sensational from the get go. Surely he will collect some individual accolades before he leaves.
I didn't know Lester had it in him, particulary for the stretch. Hat off. Sensational.
Collision at home plate is part of the game and never get rid of it. Though, a collision is just that, there should be no 'tackle' element to it. Hit as hard as you like, dust your self off and get to the bench.
Dogs act? never seen one play baseball so not sure what that could mean.
Toot, why a catcher would ever take their mask off is beyond me (pop fly aside).
Game 2 Saturday, hopefully the ledger will be square.
go Roys!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 11:46:23 GMT 10
Anyone here from the pennant committee know the result of the protest Footscray lodged in the Womens D3 game last weekend? Can't get an answer from the league, and here we are 25 hours away from game time Anything yet mate - also I wouldnt mind seeing the Umpire Appointments for the weekend and see if we are getting one (or more) on Sunday ?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 11:54:28 GMT 10
I'm curious why discussion on this forum regarding an incident in December involving a Division One player leaving the field and being involved in an altercation with a spectator was 'gagged' by forum administrators, yet the discussion of these events has been permitted without restraint, including the naming of individuals and events currently under investigation by the BV Tribunal and the Summer League Committee.
Please note, I'm not encouraging censorship, in fact, the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 11:58:52 GMT 10
Anyone here from the pennant committee know the result of the protest Footscray lodged in the Womens D3 game last weekend? Can't get an answer from the league, and here we are 25 hours away from game time 4C, this issue revolved around the start time/completion time of the game... the official record of the game time is taken from the match report. Unfortunately, the SLC only received a copy of the match report from the umpire last night (I think it was mailed to BV before any electronic copy could be created). A decision was communicated to the SLC this morning at 7:51am... I'm hoping the decision has since been communicated to the clubs... as I'm not responsible for the official communication of these matters and, at least for now, the forum is not the offical channel for this, I will refrain from providing the outcome. Please contact your club, or BV, for clarification on the outcome of the protest.
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Mar 15, 2013 12:29:58 GMT 10
I'm curious why discussion on this forum regarding an incident in December involving a Division One player leaving the field and being involved in an altercation with a spectator was 'gagged' by forum administrators, yet the discussion of these events has been permitted without restraint, including the naming of individuals and events currently under investigation by the BV Tribunal and the Summer League Committee. Please note, I'm not encouraging censorship, in fact, the opposite. I'm curious as to why BV have in the past threatened employees with dismissal for posting on the forum, one receiving a written warinig for posting details of a come and try day. And recently warned a volunteer that posting on the forum was banned. Once again for posting baseball related info. You you seem to be able to freely post BV matters with no recourse. Please note, I'm not encouraging censorship, in fact, the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Mar 15, 2013 12:38:45 GMT 10
Anyone here from the pennant committee know the result of the protest Footscray lodged in the Womens D3 game last weekend? Can't get an answer from the league, and here we are 25 hours away from game time 4C, this issue revolved around the start time/completion time of the game... the official record of the game time is taken from the match report. Unfortunately, the SLC only received a copy of the match report from the umpire last night (I think it was mailed to BV before any electronic copy could be created). A decision was communicated to the SLC this morning at 7:51am... I'm hoping the decision has since been communicated to the clubs... as I'm not responsible for the official communication of these matters and, at least for now, the forum is not the offical channel for this, I will refrain from providing the outcome. Please contact your club, or BV, for clarification on the outcome of the protest. So you can explain everything behind the decision...except for what the actual decision is?
|
|
|
Post by wearnie52 on Mar 15, 2013 12:53:41 GMT 10
As someone who has been 'warned' not to post on the forum, i have held my tongue in many instances (although i didn't agree with being 'banned' from posting in the first place).
Today i can no longer hold my tongue, in fact, i am about to lose the plot regarding the Div 3 game/protest.
There is an issue regarding this protest, a few actually - yet at 1.51pm on Friday afternoon, after attempting to call BV 6 times, leaving 2 messages with Christine, and sending 3 emails..............guess what, still no response from BV. Funny that.
I propose that next year the 'Victorian Women's Baseball League' is started, and women's baseball has it's own separate League operated solely by volunteers (who do a better job than the full time employed ones at BV anyway).
It's really not that hard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 13:01:34 GMT 10
I'm curious why discussion on this forum regarding an incident in December involving a Division One player leaving the field and being involved in an altercation with a spectator was 'gagged' by forum administrators, yet the discussion of these events has been permitted without restraint, including the naming of individuals and events currently under investigation by the BV Tribunal and the Summer League Committee. Please note, I'm not encouraging censorship, in fact, the opposite. First, well spoken Camov and paulbrown. A terrific game of baseball. Let's hope for another ripper or two at the weekend, but without anything untoward happening in the heat of the moment. aueagle30, that is a fair question. In instances like this we are always uncomfortable about names being mentioned and about comment being made by people who either did not witness any particular incident and/or who may not be totally impartial given any connection to a particular club. Once a person has been suspended (as appears to have been the case with the Fitzroy player - please correct me if that is not so), then his name can be mentioned as fact after the event. When serious allegations are being made, at any time, it is important that people do not fuel any flames by posting rumours, hearsay and their own interpretations of what may or may not have happened. I don't know about other admins, but I was tempted to gag the whole discussion after the issue was first raised. I chose not to because the issue had already blown up on social media by early the next morning, with comment even being made by persons directly connected with either BV or particular clubs. When you say that individuals and events are "currently under investigation by the BV Tribunal and the Summer League Committee" you clearly have some knowledge that many or most of us do not. Given pending investigations and the possibility of further charges and/or action, I am requesting that people not make further comment on what happened until all matters have been resolved through the correct processes. The instance you mentioned from late last year was fundamentally different in as much as the charges were known immediately. Because of the serious nature of those charges, it was vital that the integrity of the BV Tribunal not be potentially compromised by rumour and public comment on this Forum or elsewhere. On that occasion Forum members respected the process that needed to be followed for the truth to be determined and for justice to be delivered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 13:56:22 GMT 10
As part resolution in that process, be prepared for a big call this afternoon.
Again, please refrain from making comments that are personal or potentially defamatory.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 14:14:53 GMT 10
I'm curious why discussion on this forum regarding an incident in December involving a Division One player leaving the field and being involved in an altercation with a spectator was 'gagged' by forum administrators, yet the discussion of these events has been permitted without restraint, including the naming of individuals and events currently under investigation by the BV Tribunal and the Summer League Committee. Please note, I'm not encouraging censorship, in fact, the opposite. I'm curious as to why BV have in the past threatened employees with dismissal for posting on the forum, one receiving a written warinig for posting details of a come and try day. And recently warned a volunteer that posting on the forum was banned. Once again for posting baseball related info. You you seem to be able to freely post BV matters with no recourse. Please note, I'm not encouraging censorship, in fact, the opposite. Puma, I'm not an employee of BV... My position on the SLC is voluntary. I was active on this forum before my role began with the SLC (mid-2012). I was not told at the time to cease my involvement with the forum, nor have I been warned off my continued involvement. I've long expressed my frustration and concern at what I've considered poor communication from BV and the SLC in the past... I've expressed to the administrators that better communication would assist in improving the relationship between the league and the members, and present the administration as a leader on issues, rather than a plodder. As long as our community remains diverse, we'll always differ on opinions, but the real breakdown has come about because members are often left to feel uninformed and unimportant. I try to use my involvement on this forum to provide some insight into the processes taken by the SLC... I hope my insight might help to bridge the communication breakdown in some way. I'm not sure it's working, to be honest! If BV or the SLC are unhappy with my postings, they're yet to inform me. You'll be the first to know if that changes.
|
|
|
Post by Goblin on Mar 15, 2013 14:19:34 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 14:24:22 GMT 10
4C, this issue revolved around the start time/completion time of the game... the official record of the game time is taken from the match report. Unfortunately, the SLC only received a copy of the match report from the umpire last night (I think it was mailed to BV before any electronic copy could be created). A decision was communicated to the SLC this morning at 7:51am... I'm hoping the decision has since been communicated to the clubs... as I'm not responsible for the official communication of these matters and, at least for now, the forum is not the offical channel for this, I will refrain from providing the outcome. Please contact your club, or BV, for clarification on the outcome of the protest. So you can explain everything behind the decision...except for what the actual decision is? Stu, as I just posted, I'm trying to provide some insight into the process, and perhaps give an understanding why resolutions aren't immediate (or even timely, in some cases). Out of respect for the players and clubs involved, I don't see it as my place to undermine the process BV has in place for communicating these decisions. While I'm aware that many here see the BV process as ineffective, and regardless of my own opinions on the matter, I believe its important to uphold the process. And Stu, I'd hardly acknowledge my last post as covering 'everything behind the decision,'... I noted a reason for the delay in the decision, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by gj on Mar 15, 2013 14:37:20 GMT 10
Must agree with Nate on this one, I thought his original post was well written and answered a few questions as to the delay. It is not his role to notify the parties of the decision which must come through formal channels. I can also understand Simone's frustration at not being able to get a straight answer from BV. Not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by wearnie52 on Mar 15, 2013 14:40:26 GMT 10
gj, got a phone call at 2.26pm to confirm my girls have to turn up tomorrow at 9am to continue last week's game.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Mar 15, 2013 14:40:42 GMT 10
Forgive me Mr Holmes, I cannot understand how a protest only came to light on Thursday evening. Surely if something was known beforehand, the respective stakeholders should have been informed and a resolution reached earlier in the week. Waiting for the mail to arrive is perhaps the cheapest excuse I can think of in this situation.
As a consequence of the decision that has been reached, the team that 'won' the game last week will be down two players from the game who are unavailable this week. You also have a situation where a team can sit back and wait for two teams to contest a one innings shoot-out (perhaps longer if scores are tied at the end) and then they can take the field against an opponent whose pitcher may have already thrown 30-40 pitches. I note that it is against the rules in men's baseball for a pitcher to throw twice in a day (for example someone throwing in the seconds cannot then throw in the ones). Tomorrow though, for women's division three, it seems that one team can in fact do so. What if one of the pitchers was a junior? Surely that gives an extra advantage to the team that sit back and wait.
Level playing field? That's just silly.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Mar 15, 2013 15:31:06 GMT 10
Forgive me Mr Holmes, I cannot understand how a protest only came to light on Thursday evening. Surely if something was known beforehand, the respective stakeholders should have been informed and a resolution reached earlier in the week. Waiting for the mail to arrive is perhaps the cheapest excuse I can think of in this situation. As a consequence of the decision that has been reached, the team that 'won' the game last week will be down two players from the game who are unavailable this week. You also have a situation where a team can sit back and wait for two teams to contest a one innings shoot-out (perhaps longer if scores are tied at the end) and then they can take the field against an opponent whose pitcher may have already thrown 30-40 pitches. I note that it is against the rules in men's baseball for a pitcher to throw twice in a day (for example someone throwing in the seconds cannot then throw in the ones). Tomorrow though, for women's division three, it seems that one team can in fact do so. What if one of the pitchers was a junior? Surely that gives an extra advantage to the team that sit back and wait. Level playing field? That's just silly. Mr Capel, I'm happy to accept your self-appointment as expert of cheap excuses... all I can do is relay to you the information as it was given to me. The SLC was made aware of the protest on Monday. The umpire was confirmed on Tuesday the match card had been sent by mail and the offical game time was recorded on the card. The match card was provided to the SLC for review at 3:48pm yesterday. An offical decision was communicated to the SLC at 7:51am this morning. Questions of why Springvale wasn't aware of the protest until this afternoon, and why the SLC's decision wasn't expressed sooner are vaild. As I've said many times, I don't speak on behalf of BV or the SLC, I only hope to provide insight into the processes. I won't speak on behalf of BV in answer of these questions because I don't know the answer. Regarding the issue of pitchers pitching in two games on why day, playing condition 38 refers to re-entry only... as each game will tomorrow will be a separate round, pitchers can pitch in both game... junior pitchers will be restricted under By-Law 18, but can still pitch minors in both games. It was determined by the SLC that the correct rules regarding the timing of the game last week were not applied by the umpires and was called complete with 10 minutes still to play. Quite silly indeed.
|
|