3 minutes ago, old dee said:

Hmm seems you are fired up about this Mr. Leg. Cannot share your enthusiasm for the poor hardly done by boys. Cheats belong in other places not the Aussie teams. If the penalties were a bit high so be it others might think more in the future. 

Not fired up, just bemused by the hypocrisy of so many.

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by Redleg

15 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Not fired up, just bemused by the hypocrisy of so many.

I agree with you Red     The vision of Smith being escorted through Cape Town airport was not much different to watching a well known drug dealer being escorted thought an airprt in Bali.    Paki players banned for match fixing?   All back playing for their country.     Sth Africa's captain twice cited for ball tampering.   Still captain of his country.

This reaction is way over the top.

1 minute ago, Bossdog said:

I agree with you Red     The vision of Smith being escorted through Cape Town airport was not much different to watching a well known drug dealer being escorted thought an airprt in Bali.    Paki players banned for match fixing?   All back playing for their country.     Sth Africa's captain twice cited for ball tampering.   Still captain of his country.

This reaction is way over the top.

Depends where you judge it bossdog. The countries mentioned are hardly the peak of the justice system. What it points out is how poor the previous penalties were. 

Ball tampering is endemic to test playing nations  the pitch manipulation in The UK the lollies, the mint etc etc the best way to stop it is to have a new ball every 40 overs 

3 minutes ago, deesrule said:

Ball tampering is endemic to test playing nations  the pitch manipulation in The UK the lollies, the mint etc etc the best way to stop it is to have a new ball every 40 overs 

I don't agree the best way is to have meaningful penalties. Players like AFL footballers only understand one thing. Not playing the rest is a slap with a wet tram ticket.

5 minutes ago, deesrule said:

Ball tampering is endemic to test playing nations  the pitch manipulation in The UK the lollies, the mint etc etc the best way to stop it is to have a new ball every 40 overs 

Yep, new ball more often and no 'manipulation' of the ball at all. No shining one side, no sweat or saliva, no returns on the bounce, only umpire to adjust ball. Min penalty 10 runs and match fee. Just because shining one side has happened for 100 years doesn't mean it's not unaturally manipulating the ball to advantage. 

16 minutes ago, old dee said:

I don't agree the best way is to have meaningful penalties. Players like AFL footballers only understand one thing. Not playing the rest is a slap with a wet tram ticket.

Realistically only Australia seems to take it seriously the ICC gave Smith a one match ban. Other countries will continue to rort . The English doctor pitches to be abrasive  replacing the ball more often would reduce this , the spinners would still improve as the pitch wears

19 minutes ago, deesrule said:

Realistically only Australia seems to take it seriously the ICC gave Smith a one match ban. Other countries will continue to rort . The English doctor pitches to be abrasive  replacing the ball more often would reduce this , the spinners would still improve as the pitch wears

maybe we just need teflon-coated carbon-fibre balls

1994      Mike Atherton         GUILTY   Ball tampering      Fined $3700

2010      Shahid Afridi           GUILTY             "                     Sus  2 20/20 games

2013     Faf du Plessis          Guilty                "                     Fined 50% match fee

2014     Veron Philander          "                     "                      Fined 75% match fee

2016      Faf du Plessis            "                     "                      3 demerit points on record

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by Bossdog

2 hours ago, old dee said:

I don't agree the best way is to have meaningful penalties. Players like AFL footballers only understand one thing. Not playing the rest is a slap with a wet tram ticket.

i see your point but also mr legs.

whilst the icc standard ball tampering penalty of 1 match (+ some points and match fee) is manifestly inadequate, there is one hell of a big difference from 1 game for 1 person to nearly three years across 3 people (plus all the attendant $ costs that result)

I think too that this is the first case that the offenders have actually owned up. In the other cases all sorts of stupid claims of innocence were made and du plessis even appealed one of his charges.

some say that this instance was worse because  of premeditation and complicity. You can't tell me all the other ones weren't premeditated and as for complicity we just wouldn't know because they all claimed innocence. to me they were all just the same - a blatant breaking of the rules and cheating, full stop

bottom line, i think the final penalties were excessive and the players effectively punished also for all the perceived recent sins of the team

i don't doubt the public outrage was increased due to the general bad sportsmanlike behaviour of the team in recent years and that this was a major factor in determining the sentence (fairly or not). this makes ca all the more hypocritical as they have had adequate opportunity over the years to do something about this bad behaviour but chose to ignore it and therefore tacitly give it approval

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by daisycutter

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i see your point but also mr legs.

whilst the icc standard ball tampering penalty of 1 match (+ some points and match fee) is manifestly inadequate, there is one hell of a big difference from 1 game for 1 person to nearly three years across 3 people (plus all the attendant $ costs that result)

I think too that this is the first case that the offenders have actually owned up. In the other cases all sorts of stupid claims of innocence were made and du plessis even appealed his charge.

some say that this instance was worse because  of premeditation and complicity. You can't tell me all the other ones weren't premeditated and as for complicity we just wouldn't know because they all claimed innocence. to me they were all just the same - a blatant breaking of the rules and cheating, full stop

bottom line, i think the final penalties were excessive and the players effectively punished also for all the perceived recent sins of the team

i don't doubt the public outrage was increased due to the general bad sportsmanlike behaviour of the team in recent years and that this was a major factor in determining the sentence (fairly or not). this makes ca or the more hypocritical as they have had adequate opportunity over the years to do something about this bad behaviour but chose to ignore it and therefore tacitly give it approval

Well apparently a zipper just appeared on Du Plessis' cricket pants.

He tried to remove the zipper with the ball. 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

maybe we just need teflon-coated carbon-fibre balls

Bancroft would have benefited from this considering where he put his sandpaper 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i see your point but also mr legs.

whilst the icc standard ball tampering penalty of 1 match (+ some points and match fee) is manifestly inadequate, there is one hell of a big difference from 1 game for 1 person to nearly three years across 3 people (plus all the attendant $ costs that result)

I think too that this is the first case that the offenders have actually owned up. In the other cases all sorts of stupid claims of innocence were made and du plessis even appealed one of his charges.

some say that this instance was worse because  of premeditation and complicity. You can't tell me all the other ones weren't premeditated and as for complicity we just wouldn't know because they all claimed innocence. to me they were all just the same - a blatant breaking of the rules and cheating, full stop

bottom line, i think the final penalties were excessive and the players effectively punished also for all the perceived recent sins of the team

i don't doubt the public outrage was increased due to the general bad sportsmanlike behaviour of the team in recent years and that this was a major factor in determining the sentence (fairly or not). this makes ca all the more hypocritical as they have had adequate opportunity over the years to do something about this bad behaviour but chose to ignore it and therefore tacitly give it approval

I never said the board were not hypocritical DC. Just my feeling of why so big a penalty. You think they are excessive and I am confident the majority of the GP agree. I don't. 

2 hours ago, deesrule said:

Realistically only Australia seems to take it seriously the ICC gave Smith a one match ban. Other countries will continue to rort . The English doctor pitches to be abrasive  replacing the ball more often would reduce this , the spinners would still improve as the pitch wears

God almoighty, as though Australia doesn't doctor pitches. 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i see your point but also mr legs.

whilst the icc standard ball tampering penalty of 1 match (+ some points and match fee) is manifestly inadequate, there is one hell of a big difference from 1 game for 1 person to nearly three years across 3 people (plus all the attendant $ costs that result)

I think too that this is the first case that the offenders have actually owned up. In the other cases all sorts of stupid claims of innocence were made and du plessis even appealed one of his charges.

some say that this instance was worse because  of premeditation and complicity. You can't tell me all the other ones weren't premeditated and as for complicity we just wouldn't know because they all claimed innocence. to me they were all just the same - a blatant breaking of the rules and cheating, full stop

bottom line, i think the final penalties were excessive and the players effectively punished also for all the perceived recent sins of the team

i don't doubt the public outrage was increased due to the general bad sportsmanlike behaviour of the team in recent years and that this was a major factor in determining the sentence (fairly or not). this makes ca all the more hypocritical as they have had adequate opportunity over the years to do something about this bad behaviour but chose to ignore it and therefore tacitly give it approval

What you blokes who believe the punishment is 'excessive' seem to want to ignore is that this was the final straw for the Australian Cricket Board. That it's the Australian Cricket Board who imposed the penalty, that the culprits mentioned above were sanctioned by the International Cricket Council

Now I may be right, I may be wrong - but ask my wife, this has never been known to happen - the ball tamper was the straw that broke the camel's back. In other words Cricket Australia have simply had enough of  the arrogant, imprudent, foul-mouthed, abusive, disrespectful bogan behaviour of so-called leaders like Warner, a man who seemingly had Smith under his thumb. It would seem to me that Warner has had an undue influence on this team and the long-suffering Board simply had to do something about it.

I feel sorry for Smith and Bancroft because they seem to be contrite. The real villain has been Warner and I hope he does not play for Australia again. 

Also, I accept Ian Chappell's view that the behaviour of the Australian Cricket team has deteriorated dramatically under Lehmann's Boofhead , head butting coaching style. He was a bad choice because he allowed Warner to believe he was invincible.

We should also keep in mind, that Warner's batting average since the whitewash of the Poms is 24.38. In other words, he's forgotten his bat needs to do the talking, not his contemptible foul mouth

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i see your point but also mr legs.

whilst the icc standard ball tampering penalty of 1 match (+ some points and match fee) is manifestly inadequate, there is one hell of a big difference from 1 game for 1 person to nearly three years across 3 people (plus all the attendant $ costs that result)

I think too that this is the first case that the offenders have actually owned up. In the other cases all sorts of stupid claims of innocence were made and du plessis even appealed one of his charges.

some say that this instance was worse because  of premeditation and complicity. You can't tell me all the other ones weren't premeditated and as for complicity we just wouldn't know because they all claimed innocence. to me they were all just the same - a blatant breaking of the rules and cheating, full stop

bottom line, i think the final penalties were excessive and the players effectively punished also for all the perceived recent sins of the team

i don't doubt the public outrage was increased due to the general bad sportsmanlike behaviour of the team in recent years and that this was a major factor in determining the sentence (fairly or not). this makes ca all the more hypocritical as they have had adequate opportunity over the years to do something about this bad behaviour but chose to ignore it and therefore tacitly give it approval

I am with you DC. The ICC are giving out wet tram tickets, and Cricket Australia seems to be hanging people. The truth is surely somewhere in the middle --- what they did was wrong and worth punishment, but the punishment has to fit the crime (as Mr G and Mr S would say).  The other bit that smells a bit fishy to me is that according to Cricket Australia, there were only 3 people involved, and none of them were bowlers. Sounds weird, at best.

20 minutes ago, dieter said:

God almoighty, as though Australia doesn't doctor pitches. 

No, here in Oz we nurse them

20 minutes ago, dieter said:

What you blokes who believe the punishment is 'excessive' seem to want to ignore is that this was the final straw for the Australian Cricket Board. That it's the Australian Cricket Board who imposed the penalty, that the culprits mentioned above were sanctioned by the International Cricket Council

Now I may be right, I may be wrong - but ask my wife, this has never been known to happen - the ball tamper was the straw that broke the camel's back. In other words Cricket Australia have simply had enough of  the arrogant, imprudent, foul-mouthed, abusive, disrespectful bogan behaviour of so-called leaders like Warner, a man who seemingly had Smith under his thumb. It would seem to me that Warner has had an undue influence on this team and the long-suffering Board simply had to do something about it.

I feel sorry for Smith and Bancroft because they seem to be contrite. The real villain has been Warner and I hope he does not play for Australia again. 

Also, I accept Ian Chappell's view that the behaviour of the Australian Cricket team has deteriorated dramatically under Lehmann's Boofhead , head butting coaching style. He was a bad choice because he allowed Warner to believe he was invincible.

We should also keep in mind, that Warner's batting average since the whitewash of the Poms is 24.38. In other words, he's forgotten his bat needs to do the talking, not his contemptible foul mouth

i thought i said effectively that

i disagree that this was the final straw for ca . they have been conspicuous by their lack of action and concern for all the bad behaviour

nevertheless the punishment for ball tampering is excessive, it is not justice to punish someone for an offence based on what others have done previously and for what they are not specifically charged with. nor to be so markedly different from precedence

3 months (maybe 6) would have been more appropriate and still sent a harsh message 

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i thought i said effectively that

i disagree that this was the final straw for ca . they have been conspicuous by their lack of action and concern for all the bad behaviour

nevertheless the punishment for ball tampering is excessive, it is not justice to punish someone for an offence based on what others have done previously and for what they are not specifically charged with. nor to be so markedly different from precedence

3 months (maybe 6) would have been more appropriate and still sent a harsh message 

That's one way of looking at it. I do ask though, how many 'message; or warnings does Warner need?

Also, there must have been a ground swell of resentment and anger and embarrassment at the antics of a team Warner controlled by proxy. And if he didn't control it, then why did neither Smith nor Lehmann pull his big head in?
LIke I say, this is a penalty despatched by Australia. There must have been good bloody reason for them to read the riot act.

14 minutes ago, dieter said:

That's one way of looking at it. I do ask though, how many 'message; or warnings does Warner need?

Also, there must have been a ground swell of resentment and anger and embarrassment at the antics of a team Warner controlled by proxy. And if he didn't control it, then why did neither Smith nor Lehmann pull his big head in?
LIke I say, this is a penalty despatched by Australia. There must have been good bloody reason for them to read the riot act.

was all public (australia) pressure. without it ca would have applied the wet lettuce, let's not kid ourselves

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

was all public (australia) pressure. without it ca would have applied the wet lettuce, let's not kid ourselves

Do you think they ran out of lettuce?

Also, if you've followed this on cricket sites I think you'll find it's not just Australian pressure. The whole cricket world has had enough of these bozos.

They've said, Nuff is NUff, if you don't mind, Mr Warner.

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by dieter

26 minutes ago, dieter said:

Do you think they ran out of lettuce?

Also, if you've followed this on cricket sites I think you'll find it's not just Australian pressure. The whole cricket world has had enough of these bozos.

They've said, Nuff is NUff, if you don't mind, Mr Warner.

Yep from the outset I said there is more to this than just the ball tampering.

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by old dee

1 hour ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

No, here in Oz we nurse them

We won't talk about the cosmetic surgery and the implants...

Who did our cricketers murder? I missed it. 

I heard some idiot on the radio yesterday say that the three involved and the coach will never be able to walk into a pub again.

The outrage is pathetic. I must have missed something. 

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Who did our cricketers murder? I missed it. 

Australian fair play.