lapal_fan Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 Ben Stokes gets banned most the summer, despite not being found guilty (by ECB, which I fully agreed with at the time) by doing something nothing to do with cricket. Smith gets 1 test ban for being caught cheating on the field during a match. Why do match fixers and bowlers get much more severe punishments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Milfner said: sensational from Stuart Broad, this Though we must remember that Mr Broad isn't that averse to cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 26, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 26, 2018 29 minutes ago, snowychap said: Though we must remember that Mr Broad isn't that averse to cheating. Not walking isn't cheating, even if it's a massive nick, especially if it's against the Aussies. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 1 hour ago, blandy said: Not walking isn't cheating, even if it's a massive nick, especially if it's against the Aussies. Yes, it is. Even if it's against the Aussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 I don't see what the Aussies did as that much of a big deal really. It's low level cheating and worth a couple of matches. It's not like no other team has done it. No, the real sin of the Australian team is being bald faced hypocrites. And this is what they are copping so much crap about and rightly so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 45 minutes ago, Ponky said: I don't see what the Aussies did as that much of a big deal really. It's low level cheating and worth a couple of matches. It's not like no other team has done it. No, the real sin of the Australian team is being bald faced hypocrites. And this is what they are copping so much crap about and rightly so. I will admit, I am not much of a cricket fan. Regardless of the sport or game though, unless it is in the wee hours of the morning with some drunken mates and nothing at stake, professional sportsmen in whatever game they are playing should adhere to the rules, to the letter. Whatever sport Australia is involved in, I would rather us lose fairly than win dirty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Ponky said: I don't see what the Aussies did as that much of a big deal really. It's low level cheating and worth a couple of matches. It's not like no other team has done it. No, the real sin of the Australian team is being bald faced hypocrites. And this is what they are copping so much crap about and rightly so. The problem is that it was a pre-meditated plan from the senior players/management to cheat, and that they got the youngster to do the actual dirty work. On top of this, the captain admitted it and clearly thought this was no big deal. Added to the massive hypocrisy, and the fact that they were already a team that even their own country found hard to like, and you have a big deal! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Yep, it is the conspiracy within the leadership positions that has caused so much grief. It is often said that the Australian cricket captain is the second post important position in the country after the Prime Minister and Smith and Warner have brought shame on their positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) I hope they address the issue by changing the laws so the penalties are greater for ball-tampering and that the in-game ones can be retrospective. That it's just the potential of 5 runs to the opposition, a change in the ball and a one match ban is very poor. I'd make it a 50 run penalty to the opposition at least and an innings/match forfeit as maximum together with the dismissal of the culprit for the remainder of the game (so not be able to bat and the team to field with 10). On top of that, for professionals, I'd look at a playing ban with a range of three international matches up to six months of professional cricket depending upon the nature of the offence. Edited March 27, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 On 3/26/2018 at 11:00, blandy said: Not walking isn't cheating, even if it's a massive nick, especially if it's against the Aussies. To me it's the same. One of the great things about cricket was a culture of honesty, fair play and gentlemanly conduct. Much like in snooker where players call fouls on themselves. Unfortunately that culture has been lost in cricket now and it's a shame. Sports should be teaching children good ethics and conduct but most don't, in fact they do just the opposite. As for the ball tampering shambles, the book should be thrown at them, not just for the act but also for being so stupid. Smith's arrogance during the whole thing doesn't sit well either. He should have resigned the captaincy immediately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 27, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2018 18 minutes ago, villa89 said: To me it's the same. One of the great things about cricket was a culture of honesty, fair play and gentlemanly conduct. Fair enough. The thing with an edge is that (until all this DRS business) you could get given out LBW if you nicked it and the Ump didn't see/hear the edge. You could get given out caught behind from a brush of the pad or shirt, because the Ump thought it was the bat. So not walking was a kind of ying and yang thing. The umpire is there to decide if you're out or not. When I played club cricket I always walked for edges, but for example one time I hit the ball back to the bowler, probably on the full, but I wasn't totally sure it wasn't a bump ball, so I stood my ground, and nonchalantly prodded the pitch and carried on, took my guard while all the fielders and bowlers went mad appealing and then when it was turned down their reaction made me think, "yeah probably got away with that one" but I carried on and felt no guilt. All those times I was given out when I shouldn't have been, it evens up. It's different now for International Cricket with all the tech aids, players just look daft if they nick off and then stand still. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 On the subject of walking or not, I don't think it's cheating to stand your ground, if the umpires don't give you out, but I'd say it's against the spirit of the game. Same as a low catch. If the fielder takes the catch, as says it was clean, the batsman should take his word for it , in the spirit of the game, but if he wants to see a replay, then it's not cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 17 minutes ago, blandy said: Fair enough. The thing with an edge is that (until all this DRS business) you could get given out LBW if you nicked it and the Ump didn't see/hear the edge. You could get given out caught behind from a brush of the pad or shirt, because the Ump thought it was the bat. So not walking was a kind of ying and yang thing. The umpire is there to decide if you're out or not. I don't agree - unsurprisingly. A player is out/not out under the laws of the game.The umpire is there to decide if the batter is out or not out only if an appeal is (has to be) made and if the batter, being out under any of the laws, hasn't left the wicket. If it is obvious to you, the batsman, then you should, in the spirit of the game, walk. This 'ying and yang' thing is cobblers, frankly. It's largely to assuage people's own conscience because they know they're not doing the right thing by not walking if they know themselves to be out. Quote When I played club cricket I always walked for edges, but for example one time I hit the ball back to the bowler, probably on the full, but I wasn't totally sure it wasn't a bump ball, so I stood my ground, and nonchalantly prodded the pitch and carried on, took my guard while all the fielders and bowlers went mad appealing and then when it was turned down their reaction made me think, "yeah probably got away with that one" but I carried on and felt no guilt. All those times I was given out when I shouldn't have been, it evens up. This is different, though. You weren't sure so it's perfectly fine to put the decision in the hands of the umpire. I've done the same myself more than once. I've also walked when I smashed one straight to short mid on and the guy threw the ball in the air in an almost continuous process of catching it. When I got to the boundary the captain and others were saying that I should have stood my ground as they thought he probably didn't have control of it but I wasn't in any doubt that I was out (it looked like he had it under complete control to me) so I walked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 27, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2018 27 minutes ago, snowychap said: A player is out/not out under the laws of the game.The umpire is there to decide if the batter is out or not out only if an appeal is (has to be) made and if the batter, being out under any of the laws, hasn't left the wicket. If it is obvious to you, the batsman, then you should, in the spirit of the game, walk. ... You weren't sure so it's perfectly fine to put the decision in the hands of the umpire. I've done the same myself more than once. Thing is though, the Laws of cricket say you're out if either the umpire says you're out (after an appeal) or you walk. So while you may consider not walking to not be in the spirit of the game (and I think you're right) I'm not sure that's "cheating". Personally I think cheating is deliberately circumventing the laws or unfairly gaining advantage through illicit actions etc. I think allowing the umpire to decid, as written in the laws of cricket circumvents no laws nor unfairly gives an advantage - both sides can legitimately do this (all IMO). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 13 minutes ago, blandy said: I think allowing the umpire to decid I think this is the issue. For me, it's not about allowing the umpire to decide rather it's about knowing that they're out according to the laws of the game and hoping that the umpire makes the wrong decision and fails to give them out. What we're discussing here is the people who absolutely know that they are out. I can't frankly, see any difference in those that know they are out and yet stand their ground thus requiring the umpire to make a decision that might be the one the batter knows to be wrong and (a fielder) appealing knowing the batsman is not out (which used to be one of the specific examples used in the preamble for 'indulging in cheating or sharp practice' before they rewrote it last year) hoping that the umpire gets it wrong. And really, we're talking about those people who declare that they never, ever walk and that it's up to umpires to make the decisions not them. If they really thought that then they would wait for the umpire to put their finger up when they popped a dolly up to mid off or when their middle peg was embedded in the turf by the sightscreen. Not even Boycott is that much of a plum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 27, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2018 18 minutes ago, snowychap said: What we're discussing here is the people who absolutely know that they are out. I can't frankly, see any difference in those that know they are out and yet stand their ground thus requiring the umpire to make a decision that might be the one the batter knows to be wrong and (a fielder) appealing knowing the batsman is not out (which used to be one of the specific examples used in the preamble for 'indulging in cheating or sharp practice' before they rewrote it last year) hoping that the umpire gets it wrong. And really, we're talking about those people who declare that they never, ever walk and that it's up to umpires to make the decisions not them. If they really thought that then they would wait for the umpire to put their finger up when they popped a dolly up to mid off or when their middle peg was embedded in the turf by the sightscreen. Not even Boycott is that much of a plum. I understand that viewpoint. I think I'd quibble slightly woith the term "people who absolutely know that they are out" because they're not actually "out". They are only "out" if the umpire says so or if they leave the field of play of their own volition. I get your point, but technically they are not "out". Pedantry, sure. But it's the precise detail that for me is the difference betwen cheating and not cheating. When bowling I gave a few batsmen some, er, opinions regarding their not walking and it definitely riled me up, but after the game, no problem with them. If they'd cheated in some way, that would have been different. Still, I get your viewpoint, no worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, blandy said: I think I'd quibble slightly woith the term "people who absolutely know that they are out" because they're not actually "out". They are only "out" if the umpire says so or if they leave the field of play of their own volition. I get your point, but technically they are not "out". Pedantry, sure. But it's the precise detail that for me is the difference betwen cheating and not cheating. That doesn't work. The wording of the law on appeals has the phrase 'out under the Laws' (which is obviously what is meant here) as well as 'given out by an umpire'. What you are talking about is whether or not they are dismissed (31.2). If this weren't the case and your pedantry held true then it would have been contrary to the spirit of the game to have appealed at all before October of last year - 'appeal knowing the batsman is not out' - as any and all batters, who had not left the wicket of their own volition and also being out under any Laws of the game, would necessarily be 'not out'. This is beginning to feel like that old explanation of the game - when they're all out, they go in to the field and so on. Edit: Btw, I do get your viewpoint, too. Though not those of the people who never walked. Edited March 27, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 The Cricket Australia press conference is due shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 27, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2018 38 minutes ago, snowychap said: What you are talking about is whether or not they are dismissed (31.2). You started it, I just quoted you . Anyway, we take you back to the cricket now from South Africa , after the tea-break , with Australia in a bit of trouble.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) Lehmann to stay in place - supposedly knew nothing. Smith, Warner and Bancroft sanctions to be announced tomorrow but the bloke said they may well be hefty. Also, they've been sent home. Edited March 27, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts