Jun 272012

Strangely ineligible: Lee Grogan

BY SCOTT McHUGH: Steven Wallwork makes a rare appearance for Heywood CC first XI on Saturday for the trip to Monton and Weaste.

Curtis Maguire – after his excellent performance in the T20 defeat at Rochdale – returns to the first XI, while Andy Dawson drops into the seconds and is able to face Walsden in the Burton Cup semi-final clash on Sunday.

Maguire then drops into the second XI on Sunday for the Walsden clash at the expense of Lee Grogan, who, almost inexplicably, is ineligible to face the Villagers as he has been deemed to have played too many games in the first XI.

This is despite him being dropped from the first XI after a poor start to the season, well before the team was announced for the second round of the Wood Cup, which Heywood lost at Milnrow.

Considering Grogan is a bona—fide second team player these days and is due to deputise for Roger Smethurst as captain in the next few weeks, the league rules seem flawed. It is perfectly acceptable, seemingly and for example, to have hit three hundreds and taken five wickets a game in your past three first team games and then play in the second team in the Burton Cup because you have played less than half the season in the first team. However, if you have started the season in poor form and have been dropped because of poor form into the seconds you are ineligible.

As the league was (perhaps overly) flexible in re-arranging a round of fixtures when Heywood seconds was the only game to beat the weather earlier in the season against Werneth (I thought one game being played meant others couldn’t be replayed?), it seems strange that similar flexibility can’t be shown in the case of Grogan.

If rules are rules, however, it is hoped other issues that may arise are dealt with as inflexibly.

For Sunday’s Burton Cup fixture, cost of entry is £2 (£1 concession).

Heywood CC 1st XI (v Monton and Weaste, a, Saturday. Meet 12pm) R Cross, R Zelem, D Pawson, D Latham, C Maguire, S Wallwork, J Lovell, H Naeem, C Kaye, T Townsend.

Heywood CC 2nd XI (v Monton and Weaste, h, Saturday. Meet 12.30pm) R Smethurst, P Dawson, S Dawson, A Dawson, W Hunt, L Grogan, A Fawcett, S Jones, C Booth, S Byrne, R Purser. 12th man: S Burrill.

Heywood CC 2nd XI (v Walsden, h, Sunday, Burton Cup Sem-Final. Meet 12pm) R Smethurst, P Dawson, S Dawson, A Dawson, W Hunt, C Maguire, A Fawcett, S Jones, C Booth, S Byrne, R Purser. 12th man: S Burrill.

Similar Posts:

 June 27, 2012  Tagged with: , , ,  Add comments

  14 Responses to “Teams For Weekend And Burton Cup Prices – And A Query”

  1. I have a couple of things to say on these two issues

    1) The decision to replay 7 of the 8 Second X1 matches scheduled for the 22 April due to adverse weather causing the postponement of all but one of the fixtures.-

    There has been a precedent set in recent years whereby if no games were played because of the weather very early in the season, then the League may order the playing of that round of games at a later date. There is some sense in this as a principle, because so early in the season no team would be deemed to have gained an advantage, and precious games are not lost forever from the fixture list ( protecting possible revenues and staging of the game for the benefit of players and watchers alike ).
    One of the problems is knowing where the line is drawn. Replaying games half way through a season due to similar blanket postponement of the fixtures due to weather clearly poses a different situation. The league table has taken some sort of form and teams may benefit or suffer from potentially playing a superior/ inferior team – And of course there would be less available dates for any replay.
    So to replay a full set of fixtures when it is the first or maybe second round of games can perhaps be an acceptable solution to all clubs who just want to play the season out as best they can given the fact that weather will always play a part in our game.
    To my knowledge there is no rule or law in the CLL whereby parameters are clearly set out but to take this approach in April only would seem sensible and be generally accepted.
    The scandalous decision made on the 22nd April this year was to replay all the fixtures other than the Heywood v Werneth 2nd X1 at a later date. This was despite the fact that Heywood and Werneth players, groundstaff and umpires should be congratulated for their enthusiasm to play and in getting the ground playable for a reduced over game, which was completed with a Heywood win.. A game was finished. Heywood should feel aggrieved that other clubs can now potentially reduce that points advantage by effectively having a second chance to play their game. Werneth too should feel aggrieved – they have already lost the fixture and could ask for the game to be replayed if. apparently events on that day are to be erased from the fixture list.
    The point is that this game was completed. What would have happened if two games had finished? or Three?. What will happen if only one game is played on an August date when we get towards the business end of league placings and cups? There is precedent now for teams to argue for replays. There is no rule in place other than the CLL committee can make a binding decision.
    In this instance, they have made a mistake. If this decision was made in haste thinking it would not affect things ( and that it was 2nd team ) then a terrible error or judgement and short sightedness has taken place. This year we have the splitting of the league into two, and final league placings for both first and second team will be crucial. Heywood 2nd X1 are in the running for the title and their opponents should not be given the chance to gain points from this round of fixtures. What will happen if 6 of the 7 replayed fixtures are washed out ? Would Rochdale,( for example ) demand replays on the grounds of precedent ? I doubt this would happen so close to the end of the season, for reasons explained earlier, but it doesn’t satisfy those who may choose to argue on the grounds of precedent and with no rules laid down. I hope this decision does not come back to haunt Heywood 2nd X1. If we lose the league by the equivalent of points gained by our challengers on this round of games, I, for one , will be furious

    2) Lee Grogans exclusion from 2nd Team selection in the Burton Cup

    I can understand that the League need to have a rule for ineligibility for second team duties. Simple investigation of team selections and individual performances over the season to date, would lead to a common sense decision that Lee should be allowed to play this weekend. Surely the sensible thing to do is to trust the selection committees at the club to make the correct decision and if there is an objection from other clubs, then Heywood would present their case at a later date under the jurisdiction and descretion of the league committee. Perhaps we all pay the penalty for Clubs clearly playing bone fide first teamers in the past – and the fact that there will always be clubs willing to stretch the issue in the pursuit of success.
    At least the League have a ruling on eligibility and that is why the Heywoods selection committees hand is forced – but it is clearly flawed and needs to be looked at and amended
    Lee should be eligible for selection on Sunday – simple as

  2. This is disapointing for Lee. Surely though if Lee was deemed eligible, then Andy D wouldn’t be. We can’t have it both ways; or am I being too simplistic.

  3. I agree with you David. Much as Andy will do a good job for the seconds, Lee to me should be eligible to play ahead of Andy. I agree we can’t have both, but Lee played in the last round and therefore should be eligible for the semis. Andy played in the previous round of the Wood Cup. Just doesn’t make sense (I am sure Andy would disagree though!)

  4. Its a tricky one – will only get worse if we get through !
    - maybe the answer is to pick neither and bring back GOD

    Good luck on Sunday to the Scoobys

  5. What is frustrating on this issue of players being deemed eligible, or in-eligible in Lee’s case, for selection pertaining to the guidelines being regulated by the League and its authoritative bodies is there appears to be no consistency in the enforcement of rule. Why is it that the league are so mandated in this instance but have appeared to be less a figurehead and regulator of league rules when it comes/came to mandating which players were amateurs and which were paid players for their respective clubs and the then subsequent eligibility to play. Everyone who has been around the league knows which clubs were playing more than just the stipulated ‘pro’ in their side, it was common knowledge and a general embarrassment to all; this being in the leagues figurehead 1stXI League Competition. Yet no one from the leagues governance stepped in with their rule book and lead. Yet for a single game knock-out format competition, being played in the second tier level they are more than willing to stamp some authority.

    Is the ruling based purely on numbers of games played in each of the two adult teams? If you play more 1XI games than 2XI you are ineligible?

    We need to go back to the nepotism of 1996 when the captain’s brother played in the team and also the club’s chairmen and first team stalwart! :)

  6. what is the league trying to achieve with this ruling its a joke. in my opinion they are both bone fide second team players. lee unfortunately has had a loss of form and been handed a run in the seconds by our selection commitee. by making this rule are the league going to look at the royton game which lee played in , are they going to stop him playing in the final if we reach it even though by august he will only have played in 5 first team games this season. maybe the league think lee’s poor run of form was intentional and he was deliberately targeting some silverware with the seconds. this applies to everyone if your going through a sticky patch in the first team demand to be dropped straight away before it becomes a sticky patch , then how do you know its a sticky patch ? the reward for being dropped from the first team is to still be classed as a first teamer further down the line but only when the league deem an unfair advantage when it comes to the big games for the second team. are league games or the last round of the cup not big enough for them. if they imposed this rule for all second team games then lee would not be able to play at all. total rubbish.

  7. have royton appealled the result due to lee playing , i know i would after this…..
    only lighter note welcome back to the fold walber

  8. From a distance:
    1) The decision to replay the 7 postponed games is apalling – if one game is played then that should be it – whether it’s the first game or 21st game those not played should be deemed a draw and move on as I think has been the case in previous seasons. We now have a situation where complete washouts cannot be replayed because one of the spare dates has been taken up by the partial washout weekend!
    An awful lot of effort went into getting that game on and I find it hard to believe that cricket couldn’t have been made possible at any of the other 15 grounds with a similar level of effort.

    2) As I understand it eligibility is based on the % of games played for 2nds on a sliding scale as the season progresses. The line has to be drawn somewhere and at least there is a rule and whether we like it or not we know where we stand. By and large it is probably a fair one and as Dave C rightly says, you can win one and lose one. We have all raised eyebrows in the past at good players suddenly turning up for the opposition in a later round Burton Cup match so in theory the % rule should stop that.
    I don’t know how many games Lee or anybody else has played for the seconds and am sorry to see Lee can’t turn out as he would undoubtedly improve the side. Lee is a good player and as you say Scott it’s a loss of form that has meant he has played in the 2nds recently – hopefully it is a temporary loss and he can regain a first team spot.
    We know the rules and like other clubs we will tweak them to our advantage where possible to give us the best possible chance of success – but within the confines of course. No doubt we will ensure the likes of Andy and others don’t fail on the % rule should we reach the final (presumably thats why Steve and not Andy is playing for 1st’s on Saturday?).
    Our side for Sunday still looks a good one and I have every confidence we will win!

  9. For once I disagree with most of the above comments. I feel awful for Lee that he will miss the semi final but we can’t expect the league to alter what is a very black and white rule.

    I am not for a minute disagreeing with the sentiments above and totally agree that of the two Lee is now a “bona fide” second team player. But it surely is that the rule is flawed and not the ruling?

    The problem will have to be resolved at the end of the season when the rules are amended.

    I just hope that the league show similar adherence to clear rules when the issue of paid players comes to the table again.

    Sadly most of the above misses the point or people are possibly ignorant of the rule which simply states that a player cannot play in the Burton Cup (when the 1st team are out of the Wood Cup) if they have played more than 50% of their games in the 1st team that season.

    Ironically if the 2′s get te desired result on Sunday and selection follows the recent patterns it would be Lee that would be available for the final and Andy that would probably be ineligible by that time.

    So whilst I think we all agree that the ruling seems unfair I can’t see what else the league could have done. Is there any point having a written set of rules if we expect them to be broken arbitrarily by those who enforce them as and when it suits the club in question?

  10. Bobby – your comments echo mine – there is a rule in existence and we have to abide by it.
    Desperately sorry for Lee and maybe the rule needs looking at – although it doesn’t want over complicating as that will leave loopholes for exploitation.
    As you say, Lee may well be available for the final should we get there and I’m sure the club will manage that situation and that of Andy’s (and others for that matter) to ensure we have the strongest available team – but not at the expense of the first team in the interim period of course!

  11. While the League are debating this heated topic; can they also try to solve The Sovereign Debt Crisis in the Euro Zone !

  12. First things first Dave!

  13. Crossy is correct 100% the league have rules and they must be applied however the league appears to be selective in its application of the rules, example:
    The league has re-instated as an amateur a player who has been playing in another league which on the face of it contravenes Rule 11 Respecting Amatuers. Six months ago a notice on the website of the club he has now re-registered with congratulated him and wished him well the cricket chairman finishing with the following “the financial reimbursement he will get will allow him to concentrate on his main goal – succeeding at a professional level.”

  14. common sense as not prevailed,the name grogan may be an influence, but hey ho lets support the scoobys andy and all, i WILL be ……….NOT HAPPY????

 Leave a Reply



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>