FROM:

Allcock, Nobles & Shaved

Attorneys-at-Law

Toby Shaved, Llb, Dip Stk & Bar

Head of Litigation & Poultry

Dear Sirs,

If it please the court, notwithstanding the erstwhile IWHCA's decision to uphold the outrageous contention of the Rats CC that conditions at Gannan Park were akin to pursuit of the leathern sphere upon the sub-saharan continent, thus consigning the heroic Gypsies CC to the vacuum and desolation of missing the Finals, I here-by submit to your Honours an appeal upon three main considerations:

Firstly, the Rats are softcocks who are in 11th place for a reason, in that they are shite at cricket.

Secondly, we do not feel that any of our testimony has been considered, yet the Rats version of events appears to have been accepted as fact. Below we have provided detail and commentary to many of his points

Thirdly, there was another match on the same day that ended in similar circumstances in Sydney. After Appeal, the NSWDCA awarded maximum points to the side prepared to play on.

Cricket is a game governed by Laws. The laws are there to guide players and officials and must always be applied. Eg. It doesn’t matter if bowler is having a wonderful spell, missing the outside edge, hitting the pad regularly and is generally all over the batsmen and deserves a wicket. If the ball hits the pad just outside the line, the umpire must give it not out. We ask that the committee apply the rules in this spirit when considering our appeal.

What are undisputed facts:-

1. At 13:55, after discussions between the Captains, the Rats captain declared a “forfeit” thus ending any further possibility of play after 13:55

a. IWHCA by-law 10.4 says a team refusing to play has conceded the match.

2. The Gypsies were wanting to play on.

3. At 13:55 the NSW Cricket Extreme Heat policy (EHP) had not reached the threshold for the suspension of play.

a. The extreme heat policy does not allow for a game to be abandoned once the threshold is reached.

4. IWHCA by-law 18 which covers interruptions to play caused by weather was not followed by the Rats, they declared a forfeit and refused to play on.

a. By-law 18 does not allow for the immediate abandoning of a game should weather interfere. It talks about waiting for up to 90 minutes for conditions to improve.

5. At 15:25 the conditions for play were well within limits outlined in the extreme heat policy and there should have been a resumption of play at that time, if not before then.

a. At 13:55 there was plenty of time left for the game to be shortened and a result to be achieved even with a 90 minute suspension in play.

1. What is undisputed is the Rats captain declared he was going to forfeit the match while the Gypsies were wanting to play on. At that time the Rats Captain made the decision to forfeit, he did not request a suspension of play. That the Rats captain decided at a later date he wanted to change his mind is not something that can be retrospectively enforced, as the Gypsies cannot be given the opportunity to continue the match. It is the responsibility of each Captain to be aware of the rules and rights (by-Laws & Policies) governing each situation.

2. The Rats submission is disingenuous in that he fails to mention that the Rats were short of players which was a contributing factor to three players being “30%” of his total team. We believe eight at the start of play and a maximum of nine players were at the ground. There are any number of situations that could arise where teams would be short of players due to injury, illness etc – none of which allow a team to claim a Draw in retrospect.

3. In the finding of a Draw at no stage is there any reference to the EHP, or that it was breached, which supports our position that conditions were tough, but playable. The IWHCA website on the day had a specific notice referring to it, which the Gypsies took heed of and made suitable arrangements for the conditions. The Rats did not appear to make such arrangements. We did not need the Rats captain to cancel the match based on his view of our player welfare as we had taken appropriate actions considering the conditions already, as he purports in his submission. The breach to the EHP was by the Rats CC: The heat policy states play should be ceased when the ‘feels like’ temperature exceeds 43. As we have already submitted, the temperature was not higher than the 43 degrees at the time the Rats captain declared his team was going to forfeit the match. The EHP also states that should the ‘feels like’ temperature drop below 43 degrees play should resume. With the Rats declaring a forfeit and refusing to take the field again they have denied the Gypsies the chance to play on after a suspension due to the conditions. The Rats specifically chose to forfeit the match rather than ask for a cessation of play to see if the conditions improved. (As the EHP states should happen.)

4. You have stated in your reply that “all games are different”, this is not in line with the EHP. The EHP says the way to measure heat is from the nearest weather station. The nearest weather station to Gannan is Olympic Park, this weather station was the closest weather station to five IWHCA games that day and only one of these games was interrupted because of the weather. The Rats in their decision did not show any empirical data to show that the game at Gannon had a temperature any different to the other grounds. We have supplied data from the NSW cricket official weather site showing the temperature did not exceed the level set out in the EHP. It must fall on the Rats to show why Gannon should be considered any different to other grounds that were using the same weather station. Something we did not see in their submission to the committee. Rather they cite the condition of their players, who were overworked and short in number.

5. IWHCA by-law 18 also supports our argument that the game should not have been abandoned. This by-law specifically addresses weather. The by-law sets out what should happen when play is interrupted because of “fitness of the pitch, ground, weather or light”. Heat would come under the category of weather. If the Rats had wanted to suspend play until conditions improved they should have asked for this, rather than state they would “forfeit”. What would be acceptable conditions for the game to recommence? The EHP says: “Resumption of play – Play shall resume if the “feels like” temperature drops to 43 degrees or less.“ However, at the time they forfeited the temperature was already below ‘feels like’ 43. Weatherzone also shows that the temperature constantly fell from the time the Rats forfeited at 14:55. 90 minutes after the time the Rats declared a forfeit (the time allowed in By-law 18 for suspension of play due to weather), and looking at the data on Weatherzone, it would be hard to argue that the temperature was still too hot to play at 16:25. As is demonstrated by the other games played in the area continuing to a normal conclusion. There is no contradiction between the EHP and the by-laws. The EHP points out when a game should be suspended and under what conditions the game should recommence. While the by-laws give a ruling on how long the game can be suspended before it should be abandoned and how this suspension affects the length of the game.

6. Again, while we sympathise with the Rats players being unfit for play this does not allow for a Draw under the By-Laws or the Heat Policy. In fact, such a ruling opens the door to all manner of abuse where results can be confected. That is why there is a Policy. We agree he probably should not have continued at that moment as his player was distressed, and that he should have asked for a suspension.

7. It is untrue that the Rats Captain “… called it upon himself to discuss the Overbearing heat with the Gypsies captain” This was in fact our umpire who suggested an additional break when their bowler became distressed. Such language presumes he had all care where we had none. This is far from the truth after reading the IWHCA web site and the caution notice; we arranged for a 12th man so we could rotate players, rather than rely just players bringing enough water and team management arranged for an esky full of cooled water bottles to the at the ground, and while we never had the opportunity - it had been decided bowlers would be limited to two over spells. As I said in our additional submission – I personally spoke to the Rats captain while umpiring earlier about over-bowling his bowlers, to which he replied “we don’t have anyone else” – there were still 5 un-bowled players at that time at least.

8. The Rats’ captain’s next comment regarding player welfare is also disingenuous – for the same reason cited above, and should have absolutely no bearing on the case, so I don’t understand why it would be considered important in the context.

9. Whether the game “should have been called off” or not is not the issue – the issue is why it is called off. We believe there is a precedent here that vindicates our position. I refer to a match played in 3rd Grade Shires on the same day – Georges River v South Sydney. See link to the Match result page:

http://www.shires.nsw.cricket.com.au/common/pages/public/rv/match.aspx?locx=MATCH&matchID=3171189

I would refer the Committee to the “Other Details” section at the bottom of the page:

Other details: Umpires awarded GR the match due to BSS refusing to continue play due to extreme heat conditions. 5/2: Shires Sub-Committee exercised 1.16.5 SCA Rule 22. Determined match remain ‘in progress’ and continue on Day Two. No Play Day 2 due to wet weather. Match result was a draw. 11/2: GR lodged a submission to the NSWCA Appeals Committee 26/2: NSWCA Appeals Committee determined the Appeal be upheld with the Umpires decision to stand. GR awarded the maximum points in the round (0 points)

This is exactly the same scenario as we have here (except for the week 2 rainout which does not alter the “maximum points” aspect) and the Georges River appeal was upheld.

On the basis of the above reasons we believe the Board should re-consider its original decision. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the above in a meeting.