International cricket thread

Richard Hillman

The ban was ridiculous. 1 match for Smith, nothing for Bancroft. I was expecting to see 3-4 test for them both.

Even before the sugar video resurfaced, I find it hard to believe that this was the first time. The fact that so many players seemed in on it suggests it was a regular occurrence.

The Rape of Lucretia

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The ban was ridiculous. 1 match for Smith, nothing for Bancroft. I was expecting to see 3-4 test for them both.

Why ? Do the rules not say it is a one match ban offence ?

Agree with others that Smith cannot be captain again. But that is a issue for Aus to implement off their own bat, as being unacceptable leadership, example, and judgement from a captain.

Bancroft should have gotten a one game ban too though. Its being spun in some ways that he is a newbie in the squad as if he were a child easily influenced by adults around him, rather than an adult 25 year old professional cricketer who should also bear responsibility.

HonalD

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

HonalD wrote: »

Smith deserves to be sacked from captaincy and internationally banned for a period. Bancroft should get a ban and anyone else involved. Cricket Australia are the ones in charge of these punishments and to be honest, a lifetime ban for cheating would not be out of order.

Why the heavy hand ? If it is a catered for offence, with a 1 match ban already specified, isnt that what it should be ?

It’s only my opinion.

It’s a case of premeditated organized cheating by the captain.

Doesn’t sound so innocuous, does it?

HonalD

StringerBell wrote: »

HonalD wrote: »

Smith deserves to be sacked from captaincy and internationally banned for a period. Bancroft should get a ban and anyone else involved. Cricket Australia are the ones in charge of these punishments and to be honest, a lifetime ban for cheating would not be out of order. If you call for such for doping offences and spot betting , then premeditated organised cheating with the ball falls in the same zone.

It's out of line with previous disciplinary action and somewhat heavy handed. Lifetime ban? Really?

I’m suggesting that CA should take the bold decision. That’s all.

Would any captain consider it now if there was only a 1 match icc ban and no further repercussions from their national association?

It’s cheating in my opinion, not just a bit of bending the rules, organized, premeditated cheating.

Mysterypunter

Everyone is at it

HonalD

Mysterypunter wrote: »

Everyone is at it

That certainly doesn't make it right and if true, suggests that the punishments are not a deterrent.

Mysterypunter

HonalD wrote: »

That certainly doesn't make it right and if true, suggests that the punishments are not a deterrent.

Didn't say it makes it right, just that the spirit of cricket is dead, are you surprised that little bollix Warner was in the middle of it?

Tom Mann Centuria

I think their home press will mean it'll be a little while before we see Smith et al. again, they're embarrassed that Australia aren't whiter than white and want blood.

Lehmann might still struggle to hold on too imo, despite CA statement.

Isn't most ball tampering premeditated cheating, from placing dust in the pocket to buying Murray Mints the day before. Maybe biting the ball was more spur of the moment. It's disgraceful...but it's all disgraceful, not just when Australia do it.

threein99

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't most ball tampering premeditated cheating, from placing dust in the pocket to buying Murray Mints the day before. Maybe biting the ball was more spur of the moment. It's disgraceful...but it's all disgraceful, not just when Australia do it.

It is funnier though when its them

The English media are loving it

Royale with Cheese

12 months bans for Smith and Warner, 9 for Bancroft. That's a bit heavy handed imo, I smell a successful appeal.

threein99

threein99 wrote: »

It is funnier though when its them

The English media are loving it

Oh true, and it's great that it IS Australia, they've had it coming for a long time with their unpleasant behaviour.

But the story seems little worse than the accusations involving Pakistan, SA, England etc. I don't buy the premeditated angle, that's what cheating usually is, planned beforehand.

StringerBell

What I thought last night was 12 month bans but with the final 6 months being suspended. I suppose that could be done on appeal, either way both will be back for the ashes which is the main thing for them I guess.

Heavy handed for sure, but CA are hurting and the aussie media are baying for blood

Adamcp898

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh true, and it's great that it IS Australia, they've had it coming for a long time with their unpleasant behaviour.

But the story seems little worse than the accusations involving Pakistan, SA, England etc. I don't buy the premeditated angle, that's what cheating usually is, planned beforehand.

What makes it different though is when the protagonists involved come out and clearly admit that it was and aren't even bothered to try and feign some sort of "moment of madness" as the playbook calls for



Anyway, thought the CA ban was a little heavy handed. No matter my distaste for any of the parties involved, I think they've been unlucky that this ball tampering gaffe has managed to penetrate the general media and not just the cricketing concerned. Perhaps ball tampering is an issue that anyone who isn't interested in cricket, or who is only generally familiar with the sport, assumes is a much more egregious act than it is actually seen as within the sport itself and so acts accordingly baying for the heads of all involved.

When the court of public opinion moves on to it's next case and the Prime Minister realises he has more important issues on his agenda I wouldn't be surprised to see CA reduce this ban greatly "upon appeal".

HonalD

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

12 months bans for Smith and Warner, 9 for Bancroft. That's a bit heavy handed imo, I smell a successful appeal.

Unless they take a legal route, I’m not sure who they appeal to.

Beasty

HonalD wrote: »

Unless they take a legal route, I’m not sure who they appeal to.

Possibly CAS?

I do think it's harsh, but that's because this sort of thing has been going on for a long time, and picking on these 3 in this way would certainly appear "unfair"

Having said that, it certainly sends out a message, even if they do manage to get the bans reduced on appeal

What I'm struggling with is was it really just the 3 of them?? I really liked Lehmann, particularly for what he did at Yorkshire, but it's an indictment on him either way - either he colluded or allowed something like to this to take place on his watch. Can't see how he can survive, although I think he was due to be stepping down anyway

Royale with Cheese

HonalD wrote: »

Unless they take a legal route, I’m not sure who they appeal to.

I wouldn't even be surprised if they've been told in private that they will have those bans reduced at a later date, when the moral outrage has died down. I'm sure a few poor performances over the next few months would go a long way to sway public opinion in Australia on this one.

Adamcp898

CA have an appeals process of some sort of their own I'd imagine before anyone even begins to mention CAS, not that I think it'd ever get that far anyway.

The trouble here is CA have never handed down a ban as severe as this before afaik so it will be hard to defend to begin with. I'd say, like the poster above, I wouldn't be surprised if private conversations have been had about the "real" sanction they'll face after things have died down, particularly since Lehman et al have somehow miraculously been kept completely out of it.

flatty

It has emerged that it was indeed sandpaper, and not "tape"
Anyone who believes that lehmann and the Australian bowlers benefitting directly from the cheating were entirely unaware, I have a bridge for sale.
This is entirely ashes and wc damages limitation.
CAS would not reduce the ban. May increase it in Bancroft case.
They have been lucky imho.

Royale with Cheese

Ok, outing them for lying about the details after they had been caught would lead me to believe that the likelihood of the ban being reduced may not be so high.

HonalD

Beasty wrote: »

What I'm struggling with is was it really just the 3 of them?? I really liked Lehmann, particularly for what he did at Yorkshire, but it's an indictment on him either way - either he colluded or allowed something like to this to take place on his watch. Can't see how he can survive, although I think he was due to be stepping down anyway

Have to say as a qualified coach, if I was Lehmann, I’d resign if I didn’t know anything about it - as I’ve clearly lost control if my captain and players could organize this without me knowing. That’s if he had no idea of what was going on, on his watch.

I’d say that it’s near impossible for a coach in control of his players to not know about it. And what about the bowlers. Hands up anyone who wouldn’t notice a few extra scratches on a newish ball?

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

he's crying on telly

Harry Palmr

In athletics, cycling etc the general view is that athletes should be given the severest sanction for cheating, this is cheating.

BarryD2

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

12 months bans for Smith and Warner, 9 for Bancroft. That's a bit heavy handed imo, I smell a successful appeal.

The baying mob on social media back in Australia are just realising they've bitten off their noses to spite their faces. Losing three batsmen of this quality for a year and possibly careers is not going to do their team any good at all.

And it's that baying mob that drove the severity of these penalties, they've got what they wished for and are likely now regretting they took to their keypads. Plenty of other teams and players have indulged in these sort of shenanigans and must be scratching their heads.

StringerBell

HonalD wrote: »

Unless they take a legal route, I’m not sure who they appeal to.

They can appeal to CA. There is an appeal provision in the CA disciplinary process as there is in most walks of life, they could surely go further but I suspect they will appeal and abide by whatever the outcome is.

Royale with Cheese

There is something very amusing about this photo... crying because your team were caught rubbing sandpaper on a cricket ball.

HonalD

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

There is something very amusing about this photo... crying because your team were caught rubbing sandpaper on a cricket ball.

Although I stand firm in agreement with the length of sanctions, I do respect Smith for his honesty and he appears genuinely remorseful. I believe he's on the right path to redemption and forgiveness.

flatty

HonalD wrote: »

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

There is something very amusing about this photo... crying because your team were caught rubbing sandpaper on a cricket ball.

Although I stand firm in agreement with the length of sanctions, I do respect Smith for his honesty and he appears genuinely remorseful. I believe he's on the right path to redemption and forgiveness.

:-)
Genuinely remorseful he was caught cheating.
If he'd not been caught, he'd be sleeping soundly.
Reckon he had an onion in his pocket there.

Beasty

Lehmann has stepped down - think that was inevitable

StringerBell

Jesus the bitterness of some coming out is pathetic.

Yeah DL going has been inevitable really, no idea why they initially had him say he was staying on. With the severity of the bans etc and wider implications in terms of the criticism of the conduct of the team which has been approved by can clean break was inevitable.

Opinions of people who matter or who you could at least respect when they voice an opinion have spoken too which is nice to see. Not everybody lowers themselves to putting the boot into people who are down. Taking a perverse pleasure in mocking lads who are genuinely upset is sickening tbh.