Restrictions on speaking with the media

[Pratters]

It doesnt happen in football with players questioning referee calls in the match. It doesnt happen in the NBA or most of US sports. So why does it happen in cricket?

Vaughan should indeed sue the ICC as he might do according to this article

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat.../2005/JAN/159498_RSAENG2004-05_17JAN2005.html

Every one has a right to speak and should be able to exercise that. When Rameez Raja was incharge of PCB, he mentioned in Ten Sports that he would like to put the rule of not speaking on the game's ruling even on retired players. And that was the most laughable rule some one must have thought to be exercised in cricket.

Indian players had this huge issue with Mike Denness. Now they also werent allowed to speak. Ridiculous all this stuff of what is allowed and what is not allowed to be spoken in the media.

 

[Langeveldt]

Cricket has so many grey areas that need hiding and covering up whenever they arise.. It is only the sensible option

 

[Neil Pickup]

It doesnt happen in football with players questioning referee calls in the match

Er, what?

 

[Langeveldt]

Er, what?

Yeah, what??! And managers!

 

[Pratters]

Er, what?

Okay I am not totally knowing of football rules. But I saw Arsen Wenger question the referee so clearly after the first Manu Arsenal game this season that I did think it never could have happened in cricket. Maybe football players arent allowed to speak as freely. Do not know the exact rules.

But it is much better for players to be allowed to speak. Not speaking is causing so many unnecessary controversies, its stupid.

If a player can speak his mind on another player's ability as Australians have done in the past, surely speakign on the game would not be as bad.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yeh, there would obviously be a middle ground where you could form constructive criticism, and a line drawn where it led to personal attack..

However, cricket is a very weak and corrupt business with a lot to hide..To use more extreme political examples such as North Korea and Zimbabwe who do everything in their power to ensure that the people beneath them do not have a base to criticize.. because they fear what might be said about them.. It's just the sporting equivalant of that

 

[Jono]

It's been run like a dictatorship. I've said it before, the ICC are fascists. I really hope Vaughan takes legal action.

 

[Scallywag]

It's been run like a dictatorship. I've said it before, the ICC are fascists. I really hope Vaughan takes legal action.

letting players ridicule the umpires publicly during the game is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.









.

 

[Top_Cat]

I agree with your Scallywag but did he ridicule the umpires?

I was always under the impression that players would get offered the light and if they thought the light was no good, it was their decision. So for the umpires to insist on walking off, it must have been either pretty bad or they were just jumping the gun a bit.

Either way, I reckon Vaughan is right; it should be up to the batsmen who have to face the bowlers and if it gets to bad, let the umpires first offer the option and then maybe the two captains can confer with the batsmen having the final say. The umpires taking the two teams off the field seemed a bit premature.

 

[Camel56]

It's been run like a dictatorship. I've said it before, the ICC are fascists. I really hope Vaughan takes legal action.

I think you'll find the ICC is nothing like the Mussolini regime of 1930s Italy. Certainly they arent responsible for nearly as many murders or political assasinations.

 

[Deja moo]

it should be up to the batsmen who have to face the bowlers and if it gets to bad, let the umpires first offer the option and then maybe the two captains can confer with the batsmen having the final say. The umpires taking the two teams off the field seemed a bit premature.

But what about the poor fielders? Its all well and good saying that the batsmen were happy to stay on (which wouldnt have been the case prolly if they were 8 down on the last day trying to avoid defeat), but doesnt bad light affect fielders too? What if bad light causes them to misjudge a catch ?

 

[Jono]

I think you'll find the ICC is nothing like the Mussolini regime of 1930s Italy. Certainly they arent responsible for nearly as many murders or political assasinations.

I think you'll find the term dictatorship doesn't necessarily involve murder, genocide and what not. That just often occurs with it.

dic-tat-or-ship

1. The office or tenure of a dictator.
2. A state or government under dictatorial rule.
3. Absolute or despotic control or power.

fas-cism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

So before you try and make a smartass reply, think before you hit that 'submit reply' button.

 

[Jono]

letting players ridicule the umpires publicly during the game is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.









.

You obviously don't hear yourself speak. That or you don't read your posts out loud.

 

[Slow Love™]

I think you'll find the ICC is nothing like the Mussolini regime of 1930s Italy. Certainly they arent responsible for nearly as many murders or political assasinations.

Thank god they're not being compared on that basis then.

Many people seem to think that the word fascism only describes brutal, murderous regimes that have resulted in widespread bloodshed (Gerard Henderson made a similar, stupid mistake in yesterday's Age, for instance).

But it's usage is wider than that. Fascism has an actual meaning, rather than just being a descriptive term for Mussolini's Italy or the nazis. It's actually fine to use such a word to describe a sporting body, providing it exhibits the necessary criteria -"a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control". They don't require to be murderers or assassins in order to be fascistic.

Personally, I don't think Vaughan should sue, if only because I'd like to see these matters resolved without needing the courts to be involved (and I still have nighmare flashbacks to Arjuna Ranatunga attending a disciplinary hearing with his lawyer) - and an appropriate appeal process should guarantee this. It's the ICC's playing funny buggers with what they charged him with that has lead to this.

It's clear though, that the ICC's crackdown on players' speech has gotten completely out of hand.

 

[Jono]

Thank god they're not being compared on that basis then.

Many people seem to think that the word fascism only describes brutal, murderous regimes that have resulted in widespread bloodshed (Gerard Henderson made a similar, stupid mistake in yesterday's Age, for instance).

But it's usage is wider than that. Fascism has an actual meaning, rather than just being a descriptive term for Mussolini's Italy or the nazis. It's actually fine to use such a word to describe a sporting body, providing it exhibits the necessary criteria -"a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control". They don't require to be murderers or assassins in order to be fascistic.

I'd like to think he was just attempting (unsuccessfully) to make a witty smartass reply. Because if it was a serious post, some posters have some problems on fairly simple terminology.

 

[apartheid smash]

Er, what?

nice shirt mate

 

[twctopcat]

But what about the poor fielders? Its all well and good saying that the batsmen were happy to stay on (which wouldnt have been the case prolly if they were 8 down on the last day trying to avoid defeat), but doesnt bad light affect fielders too? What if bad light causes them to misjudge a catch ?

You'd have to say that the ball would come at the batsmen faster (if only just) then it would to the fielders. Therefore the assumption being that if the batter can deal with it, so should the fielders. Still a bit harsh though i agree.

 

[Slow Love™]

I'd like to think he was just attempting (unsuccessfully) to make a witty smartass reply. Because if it was a serious post, some posters have some problems on fairly simple terminology.

I'd assumed it was a bit of both - the smartass reply only works by ridiculing the lack of perspective of the original poster anyway. I've seen the exact same point raised totally seriously too many times to count, though, so maybe I'm jaded.

 

[Richard]

I'd like to think he was just attempting (unsuccessfully) to make a witty smartass reply.

In the likely event of that, it's not really anything new, is it?

 

[Richard]

Okay I am not totally knowing of football rules. But I saw Arsen Wenger question the referee so clearly after the first Manu Arsenal game this season that I did think it never could have happened in cricket. Maybe football players arent allowed to speak as freely. Do not know the exact rules.

Believe me, they're pretty stringent!
Managers get in trouble all the time for criticising referees.