Official Ban/Warning/Fine thread

[G.I.Joe]

Reckon Ashraful would prefer that rule actually

 

[Matt79]

^^ Well he was in the middle of a decent spell - he'd just taken a couple of wickets and obviously hurried Laxman with a couple of good deliveries, so its not like he was getting carted in that spell and mouthing off.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It would've been interesting to see what punishment Chris Broad and Clive Lloyd would have given themselves for past misdemeanours. Chris Broad for his refusal to walk when given out in Pakistan and for his whacking of all three stumps when bowled out in the Bicentenary Test. Clive Lloyd for his rushing out onto the balcony after the West Indies had beaten Pakistan in the 1975 World Cup and screaming "That'll teach you - you cheats" at the Pakistani players.

 

[Matt79]

Looking forward to seeing what Symonds and Harby get up to as referees in years to come!

 

[Richard]

^^ Well he was in the middle of a decent spell - he'd just taken a couple of wickets and obviously hurried Laxman with a couple of good deliveries, so its not like he was getting carted in that spell and mouthing off.

He only got 1 wicket, with a delivery that was missing leg, did he not?

 

[Matt79]

He only got 1 wicket, with a delivery that was missing leg, did he not?

He didn't know it was missing leg, and it was a big wicket. My point remains.




Did know he only took one wicket, just stupid sometimes is the problem...

 

[duffer]

It would've been interesting to see what punishment Chris Broad and Clive Lloyd would have given themselves for past misdemeanours. Chris Broad for his refusal to walk when given out in Pakistan and for his whacking of all three stumps when bowled out in the Bicentenary Test. Clive Lloyd for his rushing out onto the balcony after the West Indies had beaten Pakistan in the 1975 World Cup and screaming "That'll teach you - you cheats" at the Pakistani players.

Heh, indeed.

 

[Richard]

He didn't know it was missing leg, and it was a big wicket. My point remains.

That he didn't know it was missing leg doesn't alter how well he bowled TBH, he didn't deserve the wicket whether he thought it was hitting or not. Nor do I really think it was a big wicket, as even then the chance of a result was sliding toward "negligible".

 

[Precambrian]

Doesnt give him any excuse to go verbal at the batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Well, as I say, as long as he's not throwing abuse, I don't see any reason to stop him from doing so. If he wants to look like a pratt, that's his prerogative, and people will judge him accordingly.

I happen to think you look like a fair pratt if you're mouthing-off without bowling especially well.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, as I say, as long as he's not throwing abuse, I don't see any reason to stop him from doing so. If he wants to look like a pratt, that's his prerogative, and people will judge him accordingly.

I happen to think you look like a fair pratt if you're mouthing-off without bowling especially well.

Pratt or no pratt, it is none of his business to go verbal (insult? we don't know yet) on the field. Am completely against any talk crap on the pitch. And when it is not backed by performances (Aus still failed to prove that they played non-defensively, nor they coul take 10 Indian wickets in an inngs) will make you look a loser.

 

[Richard]

Pratt or no pratt, it is none of his business to go verbal (insult? we don't know yet) on the field. Am completely against any talk crap on the pitch.

As long as no name-calling and potentially abusive terminology is used, I don't see any reason to ban it. I don't like the idea that no words are allowed to be used towards opposition players, it risks over-sanitising the game IMO.

And when it is not backed by performances (Aus still failed to prove that they played non-defensively, nor they coul take 10 Indian wickets in an inngs) will make you look a loser.

As I say, if Johnson wants to do that, it's his prerogative. Bowlers should be selective about when, to whom, what, etc. they say. If you think something can benefit you, then I think it's smart to say it (provided it doesn't cross the line). If something doesn't benefit you, you end-up looking like rather a pratt to go mouthing-off.

 

[Precambrian]

Not at all, the ICC code of conduct doesnt give carte-blance authority to bowlers to talk to the batsman as they deem fit. Especially in the new era, where cricket means much more than just a game. If the recepient is not wanting that, his thoughts have to be given respect.

And Johnson looked like a coward there, all talking no action. Not that India would care, as that showed how Laxman's comments of Australia being defensive had created such a psychological impact on the bowlers. But I am one for removing the talk from the field altogether, as long as it is unilateral.

 

[krkode]

Pratt or no pratt, it is none of his business to go verbal (insult? we don't know yet) on the field. Am completely against any talk crap on the pitch. And when it is not backed by performances (Aus still failed to prove that they played non-defensively, nor they coul take 10 Indian wickets in an inngs) will make you look a loser.

That's basically what happened. When McGrath got fired up, he usually meant business and wickets fell. What Johnson (and Katich) did was more of a "can I unsettle them and make them do something stupid" tactic - something that didn't work and ultimately made them look rather silly. Ex. Gambhir's six off Watson to bring up the century was awesome... but had he missed it and gotten bowled one could credit Watson with having "unsettled" the batsman. :

Sure, I'd rather there's no place for it on the cricket field, but alas. I happen to think pretty highly of Brett Lee for the way he handles himself on the pitch. Very fiery bowler, but most of the time I've seen him bowl he's quite gracious, apologizes when he bowls something nasty, heartily congratulates batsmen on landmarks, etc. Granted, obviously I don't see the whole picture so who knows what he's really like, maybe I'm completely wrong.

 

[Precambrian]

NEWS FLASH

Gambhir NOT to play the Nagpur test. ICC rejects appeal.

 

[G.I.Joe]

England will be mighty disappointed

 

[Precambrian]

He was due for a failure anyway. So who will open in his place? Dravid? Or will a specialist recruited?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Murali Vijay of Tamil Nadu has been named his replacement in the squad. It'll be interesting to see if Dhoni shuffles the batting lineup to include Badrinath or goes for the straight swap with Vijay.

 

[Richard]

Sheesh, a debutant in a game like this would be extremely tall.

How's Aakash Chopra's form?

 

[Cevno]

Why not name the ICC Australian and england cricket association with people like broad still there?

What is the point of a appeal without a hearing? A fix to facilitate australia after back to back centuries by gambhir?

His ban is correct but he should have been allowed a appeal atlleast like others are.
Watson,lee and katich all got away with their antics.Though gambhirs ban is correct,this sort of selective targetting should not be allowed.
The BCCI should lodge its strong protest with the ICC without bothering what the English or aussie media intrepret it as.