Redleg

Looks like Billy and Corey are the travelling emergencies.

Well apparently a zipper just appeared on Du Plessis' cricket pants. He tried to remove the zipper with the ball.

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

Viney hoping to be back in 4 weeks.

You know you have a problem when Hawkins has more possessions, 9 in the first half, than 17 Dees.

Even that is interesting, as the ICC handed out their penalty of one match as others have got over the years. The time should fit the crime, that is my point. It was all the hysteria in Oz that landed these guys the heavy penalties, not to mention the shame and money lost. I am not excusing cheating as that is what it was, but penalties should be the same for everyone. Remind me again what the South African Captain the mint sucker, got for putting a zipper on his cricket pants and rubbing the ball on the steel zipper, which would have impacted far more than the sandpaper. Don't recall him showing remorse and crying and being shamed in front of the world. "Current South African captain Faf du Plessis has been found guilty of ball tampering multiple times. The first time was in 2013, when cameras caught him scuffing the ball with his trouser zip during a Test against Pakistan in Dubai. Three years later against Australia, he used mint saliva on the ball and was fined his match fee." Read the full article: Bizarre ways of ball tampering: Mint, zipper, teeth and now sandpaper Ball tampering has been around for decades in cricket and is back in the limelight after Australia’s Cameron Bancroft used a yellow strip of sandpaper to alter the shape of the red cherry during the Australia vs South Africa Test Last Published: Mon, Mar 26 2018. 05 57 PM IST Bharat Sharma New Delhi: Teeth, zipper, mint and add sandpaper to it now, the desperation to extract reverse swing in unfavourable conditions has driven international teams to find bizarre ways to tamper the ball. Cameron Bancroft hiding a yellow strip of sandpaper in his pants easily fits into one of the many bizarre ball tampering tactics but perhaps more sillier in execution when hawks like ‘Oscar-The Cameraman’ are in operation. The phenomenon of ball tampering has been around for decades in the gentleman’s game and the infamous incident in the third Test between Australia and South Africa has only put spotlight back into the ‘illegal yet almost unavoidable’ tactic. In the mid-70’s, one of the earliest allegations of ball tampering was levelled against England seamer John Lever, whom the Indian captain Bishan Singh Bedi had accused of using vaseline to aid pronounced swing during MCC’s tour of India in 1976. Bedi was then targeted by the British media for trying to malign an England player. The rule allows the use of sweat and saliva to shine the ball but it becomes an offence the moment you do that with an “artificial substance”, leaving a grey area in between. The fielding sides has been found working on the ball for decades but it was not until 2000 when Waqar Younis became the first cricketer to be suspended for ball tampering. However during Pakistan’s tour of 1992, the two W’s Wasim and Waqar were accused of getting excessive reverse swing with allegation that they used bottle opener to scruff up the seam of the Dukes ball. Repeatedly bouncing one side on the ground and scratching the seam are common ways of getting the seam scruffed up on abrasive surfaces but some players suddenly become more “creative” than required. Bottle openers, zippers of trousers, lip balm, hair gel, or in Bancroft’s case, a sandpaper then come into use. Back in 1994, England captain Michael Atherton was accused of ball-tampering after cameras caught him rubbing the ball with the hidden dirt in his trousers’ pocket. Atherton later claimed that he had dirt in his pocket to dry his hands but was still fined £2,000 for not disclosing the substance. The then England skipper’s case will never be proved but sometimes confession by players make the job much easier for the match referee, like it happened with under-fire Australian Steve Smith and Bancroft in the recently concluded third Test. Some choose to confess after they retire, like what former England opener Marcus Trescothick did. The stylish batsman has revealed in his book that he used mint-induced saliva to shine the ball during the 2005 Ashes. “Murray Mints worked really well,” wrote Trescothick. In 2010, former Pakistan captain Shahid Afridi found a new way to prepare the ball as he was caught on television biting the seam during a T20 International against Australia. It resulted in a two-match ban though Afridi claimed that he was only trying to smell the ball. Current South African captain Faf du Plessis has been found guilty of ball tampering multiple times. The first time was in 2013, when cameras caught him scuffing the ball with his trouser zip during a Test against Pakistan in Dubai. Three years later against Australia, he used mint saliva on the ball and was fined his match fee. Commenting on the controversial subject, former India pacer Ashish Nehra said that there is nothing new about ball tampering. “Yes, it’s an art but then stealing is also an art. Would you put a thief in jail or praise him. Reverse swing is an art but ball tampering is dishonesty. And there are ways to prepare a ball for reverse swing without tampering,” said Nehra, who is one of India’s finest exponents of swing bowling. “Also this is a phenomena, you will find mainly in Test cricket as in T20 and ODIs, it’s difficult to reverse the white ball. In ODIs, two new white balls are used, so chances are really less. It’s only in Test cricket which is played for a considerable amount of time that teams want their bowlers to try reverse swing,” he added. PTI First Published: Mon, Mar 26 2018. 05 56 PM IST

Disagree, just watched it again on the AFL site and the ball was nowhere near the jaw of the Crows player. Wasn't spoiling a mark. You grab the player in a tackle or push the ball away or hit it with a straight hit to the ball, not a round arm to the jaw. Will go.

Not condoning what Smith and co did, but they aren't the first, in a game full of cheating. Just look at the doctored pitches, you need go no further.

Caddy tried to copy him tonight and came close. He will get 1-2.

Especially as it could be wet.

I agree that Maynard has ability and may like Joel Smith, Hannan, Weid and others become good players for the club and the only way for that to happen, is to play them at senior level when they deserve games and give them their chance. However, I think it was a big mistake, to send a second gamer out into the same midfield as two of the greatest players in AFL history, one playing his 250th and leader of his club and the other being the return game to his club after years at another club, without the assistance of experienced mids in Viney, Tyson and even Brayshaw. Put simply it was too hard a task and the Coach blundered.

Watch the second half of last week again.

Yes you should.

Yeah, it was an easy shot for Pedders, only 60 out on the boundary and the wrong side for a right footer.

If he gets through the session tomorrow he plays.

Was very poor early, like so many team mates, but came good in the second half.

And just BTW, Hawkins kicked how many goals on Oscar?

I think we should drop Oscar as he doesn't fit in with the rest of the side, every time he gets it, he gives it to a team mate.

Well yes that must be right. Normally the umpire moves players away and sets the mark. Maybe he means when the free or mark is set, you can't enter the area.

Correct.

Spoke to an AFL umpire mate and the offence is ENTER only now. Remaining has nothing to do with it.

I just love the big bomb to Garlett on two 194 cm defenders each week.

Then if you are right, you don't need the word remain, as the offence is on entering.

He appeared to say " you are f...ing joking". To me that is not a 50. It is not like saying "you are a f...ing idiot". It is in the heat of battle and that is surely not personal abuse. Yes he shouldn't say it, but umpires have got to be better than that. The umpire could simply say " no I am not and the next thing you say will be 50". Players mouth off all the time.

Well it reads as though if you enter the area but leave immediately that is not a 50. The penalty is for remaining. If I am correct in my interpretation, the umpires have got it wrong consistently as most penalties have involved players entering the prohibited area for a second, or being near the area, but immediately leaving it.