Cricket
#316
Re: Cricket
Not impressed by this at all. I guess it'll have to be the TMS commentary synced with the tv.
BT Sport announce all-star Ashes commentary lineup | Daily Mail Online
BT Sport announce all-star Ashes commentary lineup | Daily Mail Online
#318
Re: Cricket
The whole thing is disgraceful. Maybe not the incident itself, but the coordination speaks of a larger problem and that is what makes you question the past results and ultimately the integrity of the game.
#319
Re: Cricket
1 year suspension for the gang of 3, Lehmann sacked, that seems to be the mood in the Aussie public's mind.
#320
Re: Cricket
Remorse for cheating, or remorse for being caught?
#321
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 0
#322
Re: Cricket
Would he still be upset and remourseful had he NOT been caught?
I think not. He is therefore sorry and appologetic ONLY because he was caught and for NO other reason.
I doubt that this was the first occasion that this 'technique' has been used and were he to be truly penitent then he'd admit to all those other times he got away with it, but he won't because it's damage limitation time. The odd tear, well the cynic might wonder whether these are for his shame, for the dollars lost or the hard stare from his wife who's wondering what the coffee mornings have to offer from now on.
I think not. He is therefore sorry and appologetic ONLY because he was caught and for NO other reason.
I doubt that this was the first occasion that this 'technique' has been used and were he to be truly penitent then he'd admit to all those other times he got away with it, but he won't because it's damage limitation time. The odd tear, well the cynic might wonder whether these are for his shame, for the dollars lost or the hard stare from his wife who's wondering what the coffee mornings have to offer from now on.
#324
Re: Cricket
Would he still be upset and remourseful had he NOT been caught?
I think not. He is therefore sorry and appologetic ONLY because he was caught and for NO other reason.
I doubt that this was the first occasion that this 'technique' has been used and were he to be truly penitent then he'd admit to all those other times he got away with it, but he won't because it's damage limitation time. The odd tear, well the cynic might wonder whether these are for his shame, for the dollars lost or the hard stare from his wife who's wondering what the coffee mornings have to offer from now on.
I think not. He is therefore sorry and appologetic ONLY because he was caught and for NO other reason.
I doubt that this was the first occasion that this 'technique' has been used and were he to be truly penitent then he'd admit to all those other times he got away with it, but he won't because it's damage limitation time. The odd tear, well the cynic might wonder whether these are for his shame, for the dollars lost or the hard stare from his wife who's wondering what the coffee mornings have to offer from now on.
I think that is a tad unfair, sure he’ll lose financially but it seems to me that he’s starting to understand and be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the reaction. One may ask why the reaction has been so strong?
IMO
Public: Firstly, Australian culture places a lot of importance on sport (you may ask why but that’s another debate) and secondly, there is a reverence of the Australian cricket team. It’s been the one vehicle that has produced continued success and subsequently, has legitimized and glorified Australian identity. If you accept this, then it’s easy to understand the fetisiszation of the concept of the “Baggy Green.” Thus any attack or threat to the integrity and thus importance of such a symbol is going to be felt personally.
Cricket Australia: This is about resources, about money. Plain and simple. It’s about placating sponsors who are worried about the public reaction. One only has to look at the ICC’s reaction and subsequent punishment of the players to see that Cricket Australia is going way over the top with their punishment. My guess, is that it’s pretty easy to sacrifice a couple of replaceable players in order to preserve the financial worth of CA as an institution.
Australian Government: Given the public reaction, it’s an easy issue to take up. It makes the govt. look like they’re taking public concerns seriously, debates about values and principles have very little downside and are probably a good distraction from other thornier and costly issues. Plus, it always plays well with the public when famous professional sports figures, who are perceived to be “overpaid” and pampered are brought down a bit.
#325
Re: Cricket
I think that is a tad unfair, sure he’ll lose financially but it seems to me that he’s starting to understand and be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the reaction. One may ask why the reaction has been so strong?
IMO
Public: Firstly, Australian culture places a lot of importance on sport (you may ask why but that’s another debate) and secondly, there is a reverence of the Australian cricket team. It’s been the one vehicle that has produced continued success and subsequently, has legitimized and glorified Australian identity. If you accept this, then it’s easy to understand the fetisiszation of the concept of the “Baggy Green.” Thus any attack or threat to the integrity and thus importance of such a symbol is going to be felt personally.
Cricket Australia: This is about resources, about money. Plain and simple. It’s about placating sponsors who are worried about the public reaction. One only has to look at the ICC’s reaction and subsequent punishment of the players to see that Cricket Australia is going way over the top with their punishment. My guess, is that it’s pretty easy to sacrifice a couple of replaceable players in order to preserve the financial worth of CA as an institution.
Australian Government: Given the public reaction, it’s an easy issue to take up. It makes the govt. look like they’re taking public concerns seriously, debates about values and principles have very little downside and are probably a good distraction from other thornier and costly issues. Plus, it always plays well with the public when famous professional sports figures, who are perceived to be “overpaid” and pampered are brought down a bit.
IMO
Public: Firstly, Australian culture places a lot of importance on sport (you may ask why but that’s another debate) and secondly, there is a reverence of the Australian cricket team. It’s been the one vehicle that has produced continued success and subsequently, has legitimized and glorified Australian identity. If you accept this, then it’s easy to understand the fetisiszation of the concept of the “Baggy Green.” Thus any attack or threat to the integrity and thus importance of such a symbol is going to be felt personally.
Cricket Australia: This is about resources, about money. Plain and simple. It’s about placating sponsors who are worried about the public reaction. One only has to look at the ICC’s reaction and subsequent punishment of the players to see that Cricket Australia is going way over the top with their punishment. My guess, is that it’s pretty easy to sacrifice a couple of replaceable players in order to preserve the financial worth of CA as an institution.
Australian Government: Given the public reaction, it’s an easy issue to take up. It makes the govt. look like they’re taking public concerns seriously, debates about values and principles have very little downside and are probably a good distraction from other thornier and costly issues. Plus, it always plays well with the public when famous professional sports figures, who are perceived to be “overpaid” and pampered are brought down a bit.
Nice summary. I find the reaction of Aus public to be very interesting, the Baggy Green really is revered, in a way no UK sports team ever has in my lifetime.
I think Smith & Bancroft might appeal and be back playing before 12 months, but Warner really has assumed panto villain role now and looks less likely to play internationally again.
Time will tell if this changes the way Oz cricketers as a whole behave on the field. Not that they are the only ones who could take a look in the mirror....
#326
Re: Cricket
The football 'dive' is a act that is made in full view of spectators and referee all of whom are able to make reasoned judgements whether the context justifies the act.
In contrast, the roughening of the surface of the cricket ball is an act perfromed in secret and one intended never to be open to scrutiny.
However, both acts are contrary to rules of the game and you're right that the more common soccer foul is treated lightly and perhaps it shouldn't be.
Last edited by dave_j; Mar 29th 2018 at 10:02 pm.
#328
Re: Cricket
A can of worms and one that condemns our australian cousins to the charge of 'stupidity' when a little imagination should be able to achieve a similar objective to using 'yellow sandpaper'.
#329
Re: Cricket
(from https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cr...1-unfair-play/)
41.3.2 It is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball.
Except in carrying out his/her normal duties, a batsman is not allowed to wilfully damage the ball. See also Law 5.5 (Damage to the ball).
A fielder may, however
41.3.2.1 polish the ball on his/her clothing provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
41.3.2.2 remove mud from the ball under the supervision of an umpire.
41.3.2.3 dry a wet ball on a piece of cloth that has been approved by the umpires.
#330
Re: Cricket
The football 'dive' is a act that is made in full view of spectators....In contrast, the roughening of the surface of the cricket ball is an act perfromed in secret and one intended never to be open to scrutiny.
While the dive is made in full view, it is disguised just as the ball tampering is disguised as something legitimate.
Where I would argue the two are different is in who gains and who loses.
With the ball tampering, if the cheating team wins the cheating team loses. As a team.
In football, with the dive, the same thing can happen PLUS the individual made to look guilty of the foul can be dismissed in shame and banned for subsequent matches, wrongly denied of special occasions/career highlights as well as loss of earnings.
That makes it quite a bit worse in my book and more worthy of the kind of response we've seen.