Thread: So Ashamed of Our Cheating Cricket team

Originally Posted by BobL

From the ABC website;

We asked our audience on ABC News on Messenger what they thought of the bans Cricket Australia handed out to the players involved in the ball-tampering scandal which has sponsors fleeing.Smith and Warner each got year-long bans from international and domestic cricket, with Cameron Bancroft getting nine months. They'll each have to do 100 hours of voluntary service in community cricket.
With over 1,000 votes tallied up, 38 per cent of our Messenger users thought the punishments were fitting, 35 per cent though they should have been harsher, and 27 per cent believed they were too harsh.

Interesting spread. My guess is that those that would have responded would be sports followers and non sports followers might not be so kind?

Interesting penalties.

In reality, the "bans" are not much more than a slap on the wrist. If it had been an ASADA or WADA doping offence, the bans would include ALL officially sanctioned competition, including grade level matches.

Athletes subject to a doping ban are permitted to train, but not hone and maintain their skills through competition.

Interesting fall out

From the Financial Standard Magellan cuts ties with Cricket Australia | Financial Standard

Magellan cuts ties with Cricket Australia
BY ALEX BURKE | THURSDAY, 29 MAR 2018 12:13PM
In light of the recent ball-tampering scandal, Magellan has terminated its three-year naming sponsorship agreement with Cricket Australia.
Magellan chief executive Hamish Douglass said the agreement was based on shared values and "reputations of integrity, leadership, dedication and an unwavering customer-first culture."

He added: "A conspiracy by the leadership of the Australian men's test cricket team which broke the rules with a clear intention to gain an unfair advantage during the third test in South Africa goes to the heart of integrity."

"Regrettably, these recent events are so inconsistent with our values that we are left with no option but to terminate our ongoing partnership with Cricket Australia. We were delighted with the recent Magellan Ashes Series sponsorship and it is with a heavy heart that we have to end our partnership in these circumstances."

As a kid growing up and living cricket it was always impressed on us to be sportsman like in our dealings with the opposition.
It was customary in school matches and local grade matches to clap the opposing captain when he came in to bat. We likewise
applauded good batting and good fielding. There were no send offs or histrionics when an opponent was dismissed, there were
no temper tantrums when an appeal went against us. We played cricket for the love of the game and the hope of a win.

All of this has changed. At first the changes were imperceptible, but as the money supply to cricket increased so did the poor
behaviour until we have arrived at a situation where the money is more important than the game. Let's not hurl abuse and
opprobrium at the three who have been sent home.We should take a deeper look at the whole situation and to that end I suggest
everyone read the article by Gideon Haigh in "The Weekend Australian"".

Originally Posted by ian

In reality, the "bans" are not much more than a slap on the wrist.

I dunno about that Ian. Just this year's loss of IPL is $2.5m each for Warner and Smith. Then take out their CA contract money for the next 12 months, loss of sponsorships etc (Warner will be seen hanging around the Hardly Normal TV screens soonish I should think) and it surely has to be maybe 4-5 mill just in the next 12 months. Following on from that it could very easily wind up to a $10mill or so hit.

That's gotta hurt!

Regardless of how well we might think Cricket Australia has or has not handled this, it has cost them (CA) very dearly indeed. They are right in the middle of negotiating new TV terms, Magellan has deserted them, and so it will go on. I think I read that it will cost CA around $20mill.

IMO they all as guilty as each other. Warner may have conceived the idea, but Smith condoned - and did nothing to stop it, and Bancroft would seem to have been a willing executor. Smith and Bancroft both had an opportunity to say "You WHAT?!!" to Warner.

Now that they are busted and broke, everybody is a cry baby. PFFFFTT! They had plenty of time to say "NO!". It only takes ¼ of a second or less, and that is all that was required.

Maybe I said it before, but this is not comparable to Faf du Plessis' lolly spit (or any of the other multitude of sweet-tooths). That is just a bit of temporary gloss - and I reckon more or less all teams are doing it (which means that there is no particular advantage to one team). What Warner conceived was an (intended) permanent and radical change to the ball. Can't even be compared to whoever it was the scraped the ball on the concrete drain when he picked it up - that was opportunistic.

The stupid thing is that, as a woodworker, I recognise that KERRAP yellow abrasive paper. I made the mistake of buying a roll once about 10 years ago. I really don't know how it is still being purchased. It was more than likely 120 grit, and it lasts for at least 1½ seconds. No small wonder that Bancroft said it didn't work....

If they wanted a real abrasive they could have used Warner's personality on it

Simply reflective of Australia and it’s “whatever it takes” attitude that has seen us diminish in the worlds eyes.

Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am of the opinion that the banning is too harsh and then again I certainly don't think that cheating is to be passed by as something that happens.

I will admit that I love it when Australia wins at a competitive sport it brings out so much pride in my country. There has been times that even the last runner in a race has received just as big as a cheer one coming in first. I was fortunate enough to be at the final of the Paraolympic soccer match in Sydney in 2000. At the time it was the largest attended(12000 to 14000) soccer match for that type of event I don't remember who was playing and it did not seem to matter as the celebration between the teams after the match was just as exciting as the match. Both teams came onto the field to thank the crowd and the roar that followed encouraged them to keep coming back. We all watched as one fellow just kept coming back and we cheered again and again.

It is great to win and I also think it is so much more when you participate.

Trying to wrap my head around this sport a bit.... And it still sort of mystifies me how making an unsuccessful attempt to fiddle with a ball gets you banned - yet bludgeoning the opposing team's batter bowling 20 or 30 successive body and head shots is perfectly acceptable as a "normal" strategy... Not so much as a wink is even given by the sport.... I see pictures of these guys after a match and they come out with cracked ribs and blood blisters all over their chest and back...

I could easily see a case made hitting them low - in the hips or knees... Because the idea is to hit their legs or the wicket... But throwing for the head, neck, and upper chest? Really? I mean there's no chance of hitting their knees or the wicket even by mistake.... And I get that occasionally one gets away... But watching 20 successive shots at a batter's head is absolutely beyond the pale.... None of my money or support will go to the sport until they clean it up.. Sure - the batter has a helmet on... But getting beaned by a fellow like Curtly Ambrose would still leave you seeing stars.....

Originally Posted by truckjohn

I could easily see a case made hitting them low - in the hips or knees... Because the idea is to hit their legs or the wicket... But throwing for the head, neck, and upper chest? Really? Sure - the batter has a helmet on... But getting beaned by a fellow like Curtly Ambrose would still leave you seeing stars.....

The greatest numbers of "outs" are from balls caught by a fielder off the bat - usually a faint "nick" of the edge of the bat . Balls bowled at chest height are much harder to defend or score from, so the ball has a much greater chance of taking and edge off the bat up into the air and be caught. If the batsman eye is in and the bounce is true the batsman nay perform "hook" shots over their shoulders, if the balls are swinging or there's irregular bounce its much harder to do this.

Back to the ball tampering issue, I was listening to an ethicist on the radio talking about this and he commented on that fact that the seemingly harsh penalties may reflect the fact that Australians pride themselves on not cheating and are amongst the first to shout long and loud when someone else does. Then when caught with their own hands in the "cookie jar" they feel like they should apply much greater penalties than anyone else.

The idea is that the batters are exceptional athletes and are able to get out of the way with their excellent reflexes - or they are good enough to be able to hit the ball with one of their chosen stroke selection. So that makes it a somewhat risky bowl to deliver in terms of potentially giving runs away.

Sometimes there is just nothing can be done to evade a delivery. The batters have significant padding (these days), and helmets were introduced in the late 70s. Mind, the current high-tech helmet of the time didn't save Phil Hughes a few years ago when he got hit behind the ear. He was dead before he hit the ground - revived - life support turned off a couple of days later.

It used to be that "bouncers" (high body shots) were never bowled to the other bowlers when they were batting, as they were regarded as not skilled enough to evade the high balls. As helmets got better, money got higher etc, it became that anyone was fair game for a bouncer - probably from around 15-20 years ago. Nowadays there is a limit of 2 balls per over that can be above the batter's shoulder, where previously (when only batters were fair game) you could probably send down a whole over (6 deliveries) if you wished. Any 3rd or subsequent high delivery now is deemed as a "no ball" which has a one run penalty and must be also repeated. Continuation of this will result in the bowler being warned, and eventually not be allowed to bowl any more (at all).



Certainly I understand how those unfamiliar with the game can see this as possibly a blood-sport, but it also attests to the bravery and skill of the batters. At the highest level (between two national teams) it is called Test Cricket, and it is just that - a test of many things.

There have also been plenty of injuries to people being hit by the ball after the batter has hit it. There are a couple of fielding positions that use the adjective "Silly" in their description. Silly Mid-on, Silly Mid-Off, Silly Point. This is because they are between 2-4 metres from the batter in front of him. These days they use a helmet, and quite often a "Box" as well to protect the nether bits.

Originally Posted by Christos

I am of the opinion that the banning is too harsh.

I tend to agree given the penalties handed out in the past for similar offences by others.
Hopefully Australia has now set the bar for any future indiscretion by anyone.
I think the players involved have shown some character by accepting their penalties and hopefully we can consider them for selection in the future

Frankly I don't think the penalties are too harsh - regardless of any precedents that have been set. This was a pre-meditated idea, discussed amongst at least two of the players with the Captain condoning it by omission (Jim Maxwell says that he understands that Steve Smith said "I don't want to know about it").

Then, a tool to deface the ball was actually concealed on Bancroft's person - so deliberate was the intent.

That is a very far cry from dragging the ball across the concrete drain as you happen to pick it up, or a bit of temporary lolly spit (which I'm sure everyone does - so no advantage - but should not be tolerated).

As I think I stated before, in Warner's case CA are probably sick of the high maintenance involved with him. I also get the feeling that the harshness of these penalties had at least something to do with trying to end the current foul culture in the Australian team.

The coach, the captain and the vice captain are all gone. I doubt it will be long before some of the administrators are gone too. Let the new broom do its work, and let the penalties be a strong discouragement to what became an ugly representation of the spirit of Test Cricket.

Cricket is not just a game - it's a culture, and breeds (or is supposed to) fair play in a gentlemanly sport (what's the unisex word for gentlemanly?). Neither race, nor colour nor creed are a problem (which is a bit weird coming from the English of the time, but....). And so it has been - even back in 1960/61 when Australia was hardly what you'd call multi-culturally advanced or tolerant of coloured people, the West Indian team were fantastically popular here. Every single one of them were as coloured as our own indigenous peoples. Cricket overcame the natural prejudice of White Australia.

Smith, Warner and Bancroft knowingly and deliberately tarnished that image very badly indeed, and so should be penalised suitably.

From my understanding, the trio (Smith, Warner and Bancroft) are suspended for bringing the game into disrepute. As such I think the penalties are fair and any fall out (loss of future earnings) goes with it. Yes they can all be good batsmen on their day, but to try and "win by any method" when the chips are down and been unable to buy a heap of runs (or wickets) is "just not cricket".
Would you like them in your local club? To score runs or show members how to bat - yes, but not how to deliberatly alter the ball or distract the opposing team.