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

Re: Cricket
 

So.... Lehmann innocent (really?), Warner is the bogeyman, Smith & "isn't-he-young" Bancroft join Warner on the plane back to Oz.

Something doesn't sound right there.

This is the best Aussie soap for years! :thumbup:

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. :(

Re: Cricket
 

...and Cricket Australia's inability to draw a line under it. (That's not the same line that has / has not been crossed previously, of course)

1 year suspension for the gang of 3, Lehmann sacked, that seems to be the mood in the Aussie public's mind.

Re: Cricket
 

Well, Boof aka Fester aka Shrek had to jump, rather than be pushed, but he's gone now. What did you make of that teary Smerf news conference, Oink?

Remorse for cheating, or remorse for being caught?

Re: Cricket
 

I think he had some grit in his eyes.

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.

Re: Cricket
 

I can't help but contrast the reaction on the ball tampering with the tolerance of blatant diving in football. :(

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.

Re: Cricket
 

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....

Re: Cricket
 

A comparison that really isn't valid.

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.

Re: Cricket
 

How is rubbing a ball around one's crutch so as to make it shine not tampering with a ball so as to effect its performance?

Re: Cricket
 

Now that is an interesting question, and a corollary would be 'If a bowler falls such that his trousers become dirty, does this mean that he has can no longer use the trouser material to 'condition' the ball?' Similarly, 'Are bowlers' trousers tested for contamination, eg waxing, before matches?'

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'.

Re: Cricket
 

Law 41 mate.

(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.

Re: Cricket
 

So the comparison is valid then. :lol:


I'd argue that's actually very similar.

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.