Interesting standards with the code of conduct

[C_C]

Interesting indeed.
Akhtar pointing towards the dressing room after getting Matty Frankenstien is worthy of a 40% match fee deduction.
But Brad Williams giving a worse sendoff to Ganguly ( screamed in his face like a hooligan and then pointed towards the dressing room) is a scot-free incident.

Pathan clapping at martyn's dismissal is worthy of a fine
But McGrath taunting Sehwag after dismissing him isnt.

Mumbai square turner was a monster of a pitch worth all the whinging. ( 605 runs for 40 wickets,match decieded with just over 2 full days of play).

But Perth 98 was a hardfought match ( 607 runs for 33 wickets, match decieded with just over 2 full days of play).

Leads me to believe that most aussie cricketers and cricket authorities can dish it but cant take it.
Ie, crybabies when they find themselves at the receiving end.

 

[Scallywag]

But then again you could be the cry baby who loves dishing it out.

Whatever the case C_C you still end up looking stupid.

 

[C_C]

But then again you could be the cry baby who loves dishing it out.

Whatever the case C_C you still end up looking stupid.

please point out whats so stupid about what i said.

 

[Slow Love™]

Oh damn, I just spent a few posts in the official Aus vs Pak thread talking about this.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the pitch issue (I think there was good reason to complain about the Mumbai pitch, and the complaint was lodged just after Clarke had bundled the Indians out in their second innings), but I agree with what you said regarding the inconsistencies of how players are treated for behavioural offences.

Unfortunately, this thread will probably degenerate to people on both sides calling the other side (and all their supporters) whiners or crybabies.

 

[Sehwag309]

please point out whats so stupid about what i said.

Don't ignore all "...wag" 's, wrong place to prove a point

Good Post, and expect nonsensical replies such as cry baby etc

 

[Scallywag]

please point out whats so stupid about what i said.

All players from all teams swear and say things, that is normal part of the days play in test matches, Indians, Englishmen, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Australians, Kiwis and West Indian players say things and get angry and upset.

The ICC has specifically informed all players that if they give the batsmen a big send off then expect a penalty.

So grow up C_C and stop trying to compare apples to oranges.

So to have the ICC inform the Pakistan cricket board that a player will be penalized if they give a big send off.
When Shoiab does give a big send off you come on here complaining about it and comparing it to something else you have blown all out of proportion.
Not only do you look like a cry baby but a big sook who has no respect for the opposition. I notice you havent mentioned how Lehman was banned for 5 ODI's and Latif was let off for the same thing.

 

[Slow Love™]

The ICC has specifically informed all players that if they give the batsmen a big send off then expect a penalty.

So grow up C_C and stop trying to compare apples to oranges.

So to have the ICC inform the Pakistan cricket board that a player will be penalized if they give a big send off.
When Shoiab does give a big send off you come on here complaining about it and comparing it to something else you have blown all out of proportion.
Not only do you look like a cry baby but a big sook who has no respect for the opposition. I notice you havent mentioned how Lehman was banned for 5 ODI's and Latif was let off for the same thing.

But almost NOBODY, be they Australian supporters or commentators, or overseas, thinks that these kinds of penalties for these kinds of sendoffs make any sense (or are good for the game). And I don't get what any of it has to do with comparing apples to oranges.

We never had any problem when players like Lillee or Holding did it. And there are still inconsistencies on how it's applied, and to whom.

BTW, on the Rashid Latif situation, I agree that he should have been penalized for that incident - the main problem with that was that Gilchrist withdrew his allegation, and claimed that he wasn't completely sure what Rashid had said.

 

[Craig]

Here we go again.

 

[Scallywag]

But almost NOBODY, be they Australian supporters or commentators, or overseas, thinks that these kinds of penalties for these kinds of sendoffs make any sense (or are good for the game). And I don't get what any of it has to do with comparing apples to oranges..

This is where apples are being compared to apples.

"Akhtar pointing towards the dressing room after getting Matty Frankenstien is worthy of a 40% match fee deduction.
But Brad Williams giving a worse sendoff to Ganguly ( screamed in his face like a hooligan and then pointed towards the dressing room) is a scot-free incident."

We never had any problem when players like Lillee or Holding did it. And there are still inconsistencies on how it's applied, and to whom..

You have no idea what a umpire may say to a bowler over the course of a game. McGrath may something to a batsman and the umpire quitely tells him to stop and he does, While another bowler may say something to a batsman and the umpire quitely tells him to stop but he gets upset and does it again so he gets reported.

Even appeals can be in a fun way or they can be in a demanding way, maybe the Australians are more adept in letting the umpire feel in control which takes away the need for the umpire to establish authority. All the same I think this argument is flawed and made up from several assumptions garnished from a TV telecast.

 

[Slow Love™]

This is where apples are being compared to apples.

"Akhtar pointing towards the dressing room after getting Matty Frankenstien is worthy of a 40% match fee deduction.
But Brad Williams giving a worse sendoff to Ganguly ( screamed in his face like a hooligan and then pointed towards the dressing room) is a scot-free incident."

Yes, that's right. It's a completely legitimate comparison. That's why I was asking why you accused him of comparing apples with oranges.

You have no idea what a umpire may say to a bowler over the course of a game. McGrath may something to a batsman and the umpire quitely tells him to stop and he does, While another bowler may say something to a batsman and the umpire quitely tells him to stop but he gets upset and does it again so he gets reported.

Even appeals can be in a fun way or they can be in a demanding way, maybe the Australians are more adept in letting the umpire feel in control which takes away the need for the umpire to establish authority. All the same I think this argument is flawed and made up from several assumptions garnished from a TV telecast.

As opposed to your arguments, which are based on being a participant out in the middle...

I don't see how what you've said is that relevant to Akhtar's case. It was the first wicket that fell in the match, so I doubt there was much byplay between he and the umpire previously as to his sendoffs. Or Williams', who surely took this kind of offence to it's upper limit on multiple occasions. We can certainly look at replays of the incidents, and make a reasonable judgement as to whether they're similar, and whether one is worse than the other. By comparison - and it's not the only example - Akhtar certainly got the short end of the stick (in terms of penalty - clearly Williams did in the looks stakes).

 

[Scallywag]

Disregard everything and continue the self pity crusade.

I really cant be bothered.

 

[Slow Love™]

Disregard everything and continue the self pity crusade.

I really cant be bothered.

I can't see what on earth any of this has to do with self-pity, unless you're making an unsubstantiated claim as to my ethnicity.

But thanks for playing.

 

[cbuts]

Interesting indeed.
Akhtar pointing towards the dressing room after getting Matty Frankenstien is worthy of a 40% match fee deduction.
But Brad Williams giving a worse sendoff to Ganguly ( screamed in his face like a hooligan and then pointed towards the dressing room) is a scot-free incident.

Pathan clapping at martyn's dismissal is worthy of a fine
But McGrath taunting Sehwag after dismissing him isnt.

Mumbai square turner was a monster of a pitch worth all the whinging. ( 605 runs for 40 wickets,match decieded with just over 2 full days of play).

But Perth 98 was a hardfought match ( 607 runs for 33 wickets, match decieded with just over 2 full days of play).

Leads me to believe that most aussie cricketers and cricket authorities can dish it but cant take it.
Ie, crybabies when they find themselves at the receiving end.

stop trying to create controversy when there is none. you forgot to mention brndon mccullum and scott styris being charged for desent after the 2nd odi. they got off but to even have been charged was a disgrace. but of course thos eplayers are white so if you birng that up it would end ur rcist argument. get a ****n life mate

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Remember that different matches are overseen by different referees. What Mike Procter might see as horseplay could be dissent in Clive Lloyd's eyes, or vice versa.

Every referee has slightly different standards. It's the differences in human nature that makes cricket enjoyable.

 

[Slow Love™]

Remember that different matches are overseen by different referees. What Mike Procter might see as horseplay could be dissent in Clive Lloyd's eyes, or vice versa.

Every referee has slightly different standards. It's the differences in human nature that makes cricket enjoyable.

To me, it's the game itself that makes cricket enjoyable - not arbitary standards on the part of the officiating authorities. Remember that these decisions impact the players financially, and in terms of missing important matches. We're not talking about social games at the park down the street.

The standards should be clear and uniform, when it comes to these kind of decisions. At the moment, it's anything but. And IMO, it's a majority viewpoint that some of these standards are excessive, and often unfairly applied.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

To me, it's the game itself that makes cricket enjoyable - not arbitary standards on the part of the officiating authorities.

I didn't mean only the standards of officials - I also meant the way people react to situations, playing styles and tactics etc.

Otherwise, yes, a bad decision can seriously affect a player's future. However, many of the decisions in a close-fought series are too close to call, and umpires STILL take the rap for making the best possible decision in a split second.

 

[honestbharani]

Remember that different matches are overseen by different referees. What Mike Procter might see as horseplay could be dissent in Clive Lloyd's eyes, or vice versa.

Every referee has slightly different standards. It's the differences in human nature that makes cricket enjoyable.

Unfortunately, you won't find it that enjoyable when some Indian or Pakistani match referee clamps down heavily on the Aussies during a highly charged match and it ends up with 5 or 6 Aussie players being fined or maybe even banned. The point is that behaviour standards should be set in black and white and should be implemented as uniformly as possible, without giving rise to any discrepencies. It may have been the Aussie way to sledge during a game, but in India, until very recently, the majority view has always been that it is a bad thing. That is why I think a code should be brought out where everything is in black and white and the players know exactly where they stand after they have done such things.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Unfortunately, you won't find it that enjoyable when some Indian or Pakistani match referee clamps down heavily on the Aussies during a highly charged match and it ends up with 5 or 6 Aussie players being fined or maybe even banned. The point is that behaviour standards should be set in black and white and should be implemented as uniformly as possible, without giving rise to any discrepencies. It may have been the Aussie way to sledge during a game, but in India, until very recently, the majority view has always been that it is a bad thing. That is why I think a code should be brought out where everything is in black and white and the players know exactly where they stand after they have done such things.

Making standards black and white makes things very hard for officials, because incidents today come infinitesimally close to the line between them.

What may be a sledge in India may be interpreteted as mere banter in Australia by their respective peoples, and cricketers.

It is up to the officials of the game to make a suitable compromise between the two, or simply shut it out of the game altogether (which would be a tragic thing).

 

[honestbharani]

It will be tough, no doubt, but for the benefit of the game, the refs have got to get together and do it. Mark down words which are acceptable and words which are not. Like I said, it is very tough and it must be very difficult for them to even discuss these things, but it cannot be helped. At the very least, anything that is said on the cricket field that does not involve one's cricketing skills should be banned. Stuff like "you are a so and so's son" or the famous McGrath line "what did Lara's **** taste like?" The banter should be kept to within the cricketing issues. I have no problems with a quick bowler telling a batsman that he is lucky that he didn't nick the last delivery or that he has had more lives than a cat. I find that acceptable, not the personal insults.

 

[Slow Love™]

I didn't mean only the standards of officials - I also meant the way people react to situations, playing styles and tactics etc.

Sure - I guess I was just referring to it in the context of consistency of official standards. While I acknowledge your (later) point about international differences, and how what constitutes an offence to some may not to others (which is actually a really good point in general terms), it still leaves a massive hole of logic as to how that could apply to say, the Akhtar penalty, or Williams getting off.. McGrath/Sarwan, etc... Then you've got the confusingly differing standards for over-rates, over-appealing, etc, which can't/shouldn't be explained by varying cultural standards.