***Official*** New Zealand Domestic Season 2016/17

[straw man]

Yeah I went to the Basin to see how Young's early commitment of weight onto the front foot would handle someone like Bennett, and unfortunately it didn't really go so well. Just the one clip through midwicket in Young's column, a blow to the right hip and then a wicket in Bennett's column.

Even Verma was getting enough lift to occasionally highlight that really premature bias towards the front foot Young has.

I didn't know that about Young - clearly I hadn't watched enough. Think that forward and across movement is a really bad habit common to NZ domestic batsmen that translates very badly to international level. It's not even an early commitment to the front foot that then leaves him time to adjust to the shorter ball and go back - instead he falls forward just as the ball is bowled and has no time to adjust. Can't play those back foot shots off a half-step forward, while unbalanced, at least not against Bennett's pace (probably 140).

Possible he goes about things slightly differently in FC where he doesn't have to force the pace so much, I guess?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Heaps of Aussie batsmen have that same bias though. It's more to do with the ability to spot the length and push back off the front foot like Ponting or hussey did.

 

[straw man]

Sure, the way he does it though is late and he doesn't have time then to push back onto the back foot.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

to me that suggests that it's his reading of length that's more of a problem. From watching most of the top batsmen throughout the past couple of decades almost none of them play blackfoot shoots with a significant movement back so it's akin to "didn't move his feet there" in terms of batting analysis.

 

[Immenso]

Got to ask about scheduling again here.

Domestic final, at Rangiora rather than Hagley Oval, and there's mud.

Hagley hosts an ODI in 4 days. Presume the reason it isn't being used.

Being the final - no association new for sure who would be hosting it until a week ago.

A rare tv coverage of a domestic game, it's not raining, but it also ain't draining.

Wellington wins if no play. For some reason.

 

[jcas0167]

Glorious century from Fulton, Wellington will rue not keeping a slip in when he came to the crease. Excellent start from Jamieson, can't see Wellington getting this target.

Shipley looks almost as tall as Jamieson, Kyle Mills praising his high action. Apparently a handy batsman too.

He batted at No 4 for the St Andrew's College first 11 and notched his highest score at any level in 2013, scoring 203 in a two-day interschool against Timaru Boys' High.

Stead rated Shipley as a cricketer of much promise.

"I think Henry has a lot of potential as a future all-rounder. He bowls at a good clip and he has a simple and uncomplicated batting technique as well.

"He has the technique to be a genuine all-rounder."

At 1.96m, Shipley is another tall figure in Canterbury's fast bowling stable and can send the ball down from a tremendous height.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...ry-shipley-wants-to-build-on-debut-appearance

 

[straw man]

A shame the one day final turned out to be a T20. Congrats Canterbury and especially Fulton, who had a rubbish season until now iirc and then pulled this match-winning innings out in the final.

 

[Immenso]

Fulton was 13 off 20, 116 not out of 58.

103 runs streak off 28 balls.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

"simple, uncomplicated technique" is code for "gives it a whack but will suck against anything above 140"

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Kuggeleijn rape trial: Complainant's clothes 'provocative' | Stuff.co.nz

z

 

[Blain]

Terrible case. He said she said case. Less said the better.

Feels like another huge hole in the domestic schedule ATM Guys won't get a chance to show much before the Test series.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

he literally admitted that she said "no" more than once, and is now trying to say that how she dressed and acted earlier is somehow justification. He's said everything he can to be convicted short of pleading guilty. Yet the case goes on. There's a massive problem here.

 

[Meridio]

Kuggeleijn rape trial: Jury finds cricketer not guilty | Stuff.co.nz

Feel pretty uneasy about this. Seemed to me that the entire defence case was to go into full 'she was asking for it' mode.

 

[straw man]

Defence counsel Morgan said the complainant relented because after two initial refusals to have *** and partaking in foreplay, she could not turn him down.

"She couldn't turn this man down yet again because she would then be thought of as a b.... or a tease," Morgan said.

"My client respected the complainant's wishes at night when he could've had her so easily when she was drunk," Morgan said.

"That's not the behaviour of a rapist, is it?"

It's very hard to comment on the case itself, but I can definitely comment that 'Defense counsel Morgan's' argument here seems spurious and rather gross - I can't see that any of that answers the question of whether a rape was committed.

 

[veganbob]

He has been found not guilty. Imo leave it at that as none of us know what happened.

Let him get on with life and cricket, hopefully he has a good career ahead.

 

[Mike5181]

The thing is, if she says yes, and she wasn't coerced, she consented.
Whether he bothered or pressured her until she said yes (or "ok", whatever) is not relevant. The law presumes men and women to have sufficient agency to say "no" and continue saying no until they actually mean "yes" and are okay with the consequences, ie ***. Feeling pressured, even being pressured or guilted into *** isn't coercion. Threats, sure, but it doesn't sound like that happened.
Basically, a person can annoy you, guilt trip you, or whatever else into *** and they haven't legally done anything wrong. If a person is sufficiently weak willed that they give in to that, well, don't get me wrong, it really sucks, but they have to take responsibility for preferring 'not to come across as a tease' over standing their ground. The other person might be a real jackass but they aren't a rapist.
It's all a really **** situation for both parties, by the sounds of things.

Definitely lean more towards this view of things based on what I've read of the case.

 

[hendrix]

Kuggeleijn rape trial: Jury finds cricketer not guilty | Stuff.co.nz

Feel pretty uneasy about this. Seemed to me that the entire defence case was to go into full 'she was asking for it' mode.

he literally admitted that she said "no" more than once, and is now trying to say that how she dressed and acted earlier is somehow justification. He's said everything he can to be convicted short of pleading guilty. Yet the case goes on. There's a massive problem here.

What?

Kuggeleijn's lawyer's angle is bloody stupid, and Kuggeleijn's response to the questions himself have been clearly dumb as hell. But just like what she was wearing is irrelevant, the "she likes penis" guy talk is also irrelevant. So neither laywer is actually attacking the crux of the issue, which still comes down to whether she consented or didn't consent during the moment.

Saying "yes" doesn't grant limitless consent, but at the same time saying "no" at one point in time doesn't mean that consent can't be granted later on.

I know the lawyer's line of reasoning is cringey but we still have to be fair here.

 

[Flem274*]

im surprised he got off tbh considering his lawyer had to go on about the clothes she was wearing and said during the trial "by no you meant yes right?". that's usually a "totally did it and now we need to go down the Men Are Helpless *** Addicts line"

but i think in this case it was "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "innocent". he's still a bloke i wouldn't complain if he ended up on a list of Worst International Cricketers Ever after being embarrassed on the world stage.

 

[Immenso]

im surprised he got off tbh considering his lawyer had to go on about the clothes she was wearing and said during the trial "by no you meant yes right?". that's usually a "totally did it and now we need to go down the Men Are Helpless *** Addicts line"

but i think in this case it was "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "innocent". he's still a bloke i wouldn't complain if he ended up on a list of Worst International Cricketers Ever after being embarrassed on the world stage.

Think that was from the first trial, which didnt reach a verdict.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't want to comment on the trial, because it's not in my realm of knowledge.

But now that he's been found not guilty, and has dominated domestically this summer, I take it he'll be strongly considered with no influence from this trial?