Official Ban/Warning/Fine thread

[Cevno]

Still wondering why Katich wasn't pulled up.

Chris Broad was the match referee ,what do you expect?

Hate to say it,but told you so.

 

[Cevno]

My post from another forum-

So the BCCI controls the ICC and still guys like chris broad are match referee?So much for that argument
Guys like chris broad,proctor,bucknor,hair and others are still testimony to the fact who really controls the ICC and who has for so long.

Fair enough punishment for gambhir but what about provacateer watson and katich(who should have been banned too).

 

[Precambrian]

I think aggression is not Gambhir's forte, and when you try to "manufacture" it, it way go over the top. Katich's too was a case similar. Watson is naturally aggressive, and that shows by him getting under the skin of the opposition nearly everytime.

Best example of player who has withstood aggression is Tendulkar. In his 20 yr career, he has seen the likes of everyone from Akthar, Warne, McGrath, Nel etc and not even a blot in his record. Repay them with performances. Nobody regards Tendulkar as sissy or coward because he never showed his anger in public, in fact his bat does so much talking that he is extremely rarely sledged. Gambhir can surely learn from that.

 

[Precambrian]

Still wondering why Katich wasn't pulled up.

Yeah big mystery there.

 

[Bracken]

How about katich against gambhir yesterday.
He clearly got in the way of gambhir physically.

As for watson,when he was going for the first run watson deliberately put his hand/shoulder in frond of gambhir which gambhir managed to avoid.

Though tendulkar(being the gentleman/older breed of indian cricketer he is) did not react clarke clearly took him down to prevent him from taking the run in the CB series.

Utter crap. Watson's arm was out, but was withdrawn well before Gambhir ran past. Gambhir didn't deviate an inch to "avoid" Watson's arm- nor did he need to.

Forward to about 1:30 of the clip and see for yourself...

As for Katich, he was more than likely being a complete pecker in my view, but he was subtle enough to make it impossible to prove that he was being intentionally obstructive. Given the events of the last year or so, "more than likely" is no longer enough to face sanction by a match referee, so he didn't get charged.

Katich did have a lot to say, though, so maybe he could have been pulled up for abuse. Given that he was easily within earshot of the umpires when he was gabbing off, I would assume that whatever he said didn't cross the line. Unless Bowden is a part of this huge conspiracy, too.

Even if his actions COULD be proved to be intentional, standing in the guy's way is a far cry from dropping an elbow on the way through. Neither has any place on the field (and both should be worthy of their respective punishments) but to crap on like they are the same crime is idiotic.

So, Watson gave Gambhir a spray, and got fined- and rightly so. Gambhir elbowed the guy, and got rubbed out for a match- and rightly so. Katich carried on like a dildo, but left enough ambiguity as to whether it was anything other than incidental contact, so he wasn't charged- and rightly so.

Exactly HOW was Broad being inconsistent here?

 

[Richard]

Broad's already got the rep of being biased against subcontinental teams, like one or two Umpires and Referees before him. Whether or not his actions have merited that tag, once the tag is in place it inevitably means he'll get accused of being such a thing both when he is and when he clearly isn't.

 

[G.I.Joe]

As for Katich, he was more than likely being a complete pecker in my view, but he was subtle enough to make it impossible to prove that he was being intentionally obstructive. Given the events of the last year or so, "more than likely" is no longer enough to face sanction by a match referee, so he didn't get charged.

If it was impossible to prove intentional obstruction, it was equally impossible to prove intentional elbowing. *shrugs* You can't take that line of reasoning on one instance and not in the other. Thats an inconsistency.

 

[Precambrian]

Broad's already got the rep of being biased against subcontinental teams, like one or two Umpires and Referees before him. Whether or not his actions have merited that tag, once the tag is in place it inevitably means he'll get accused of being such a thing both when he is and when he clearly isn't.

Yeah, but he deserved that tag for all his actions in the past, though in this case, I am ok with him booking Gambhir, though the repreive to Katich is not ok.

 

[Bracken]

If it was impossible to prove intentional obstruction, it was equally impossible to prove intentional elbowing. *shrugs* You can't take that line of reasoning on one instance and not in the other. Thats an inconsistency.

Yeah? I would have thought that "guilty" plea might have been reasonably sound evidence.

Whenever you have spinners bowling, you ALWAYS have instances of the bowler getting in the way of the batsman (or vice versa) when there might be a quick single on. It is merely incidental contact, and nothing is made of it. As I said before, Katich left enough ambiguity that he could easily argue that this contact was similarly incidental, which would make a charge impossible to prove.

Much harder to claim such a thing when you are running straight towards a guy with your arm out, when he is in your immediate field of vision and you make no attempt run around him. At the very least he unquestionably had plenty of opportunity to withdraw his arm to avoid the contact.

(And Broad accepted Gambhir's word that it wasn't intentional. He indicated that if he had found that it was intentional, he would have been suspended for a minimum of two matches, as per the code. Given that it was almost an exact repeat of the Afridi incident, I would suggest that Broad was, if anything, erring on the side of generosity. And rightly so.)

So no, it's not inconsistent at all. Broad has certainly made questionable decisions and statements in the past, but he played this one down the line.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah? I would have thought that "guilty" plea might have been reasonably sound evidence.

Whenever you have spinners bowling, you ALWAYS have instances of the bowler getting in the way of the batsman (or vice versa) when there might be a quick single on. It is merely incidental contact, and nothing is made of it. As I said before, Katich left enough ambiguity that he could easily argue that this contact was similarly incidental, which would make a charge impossible to prove.

Much harder to claim such a thing when you are running straight towards a guy with your arm out, when he is in your immediate field of vision and you make no attempt run around him. At the very least he unquestionably had plenty of opportunity to withdraw his arm to avoid the contact.

(And Broad accepted Gambhir's word that it wasn't intentional. He indicated that if he had found that it was intentional, he would have been suspended for a minimum of two matches, as per the code. Given that it was almost an exact repeat of the Afridi incident, I would suggest that Broad was, if anything, erring on the side of generosity. And rightly so.)

So no, it's not inconsistent at all. Broad has certainly made questionable decisions and statements in the past, but he played this one down the line.

Hard to believe that Katich tried to field off his own bowling as by the time he reached in front of Gambhir, the ball had already rolled into the hands on Mid off. And then, to collect the throw, he should have gone nearer to the wicket, rather than make a mess trying to hug Gambhir.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah? I would have thought that "guilty" plea might have been reasonably sound evidence.

Whenever you have spinners bowling, you ALWAYS have instances of the bowler getting in the way of the batsman (or vice versa) when there might be a quick single on. It is merely incidental contact, and nothing is made of it. As I said before, Katich left enough ambiguity that he could easily argue that this contact was similarly incidental, which would make a charge impossible to prove.

Much harder to claim such a thing when you are running straight towards a guy with your arm out, when he is in your immediate field of vision and you make no attempt run around him. At the very least he unquestionably had plenty of opportunity to withdraw his arm to avoid the contact.

(And Broad accepted Gambhir's word that it wasn't intentional. He indicated that if he had found that it was intentional, he would have been suspended for a minimum of two matches, as per the code. Given that it was almost an exact repeat of the Afridi incident, I would suggest that Broad was, if anything, erring on the side of generosity. And rightly so.)

So no, it's not inconsistent at all. Broad has certainly made questionable decisions and statements in the past, but he played this one down the line.

Its plain obvious you haven't watched the Katich incident. If you have and you still pass it off as incidental contact, I question your judgement and worse. Broad was either dozing off during the fact, or plain inconsistent, neither of which reflects well on him.

And regarding the Watson thing, if anything Watson was the one who had ample time to see Gambhir approaching and control his strange impulse to stretch his arm out in the path of the batsman.

 

[Bracken]

Hard to believe that Katich tried to field off his own bowling as by the time he reached in front of Gambhir, the ball had already rolled into the hands on Mid off. And then, to collect the throw, he should have gone nearer to the wicket, rather than make a mess trying to hug Gambhir.

Definitely. Which is why I said in my first post on the subject that "he was more than likely being a complete pecker in my view". Unfortunately, since the silliness of the last time these two sides met, the standard of proof is, in all practicality, much higher than it has ever been.

He did enough to be able to easily argue that it was just incidental, despite the fact that common sense would indicate otherwise- to me, at least. There's no way that he could have been proved guilty of anything (due to his actions- I have no idea whether he said anything out of line) to a standard that would have stood up to a legal review.

It sucks, but that's the system we've got these days. And cases being reviewed by lawyers is only going to become more and more common.

And that isn't Chris Broad's fault, regardless of his previous actions.

 

[BoyBrumby]

India threatening to go home, I hear...

 

[Precambrian]

India threatening to go home, I hear...

Not when they're up 1-0

 

[Bracken]

Its plain obvious you haven't watched the Katich incident. If you have and you still pass it off as incidental contact, I question your judgement and worse. Broad was either dozing off during the fact, or plain inconsistent, neither of which reflects well on him.

And regarding the Watson thing, if anything Watson was the one who had ample time to see Gambhir approaching and control his strange impulse to stretch his arm out in the path of the batsman.

Firstly, rest assured that I am weeping over the fact that some messageboard fanboy is questioning my judgement. I'm truly crushed.

No, REALLY.

Secondly, I have, in fact, seen the Katich incident. I saw it live, I saw it on a couple of news bulletins, and it was even tacked on to the Youtube clip that I linked to in my post above.

Thirdly, it is "plain obvious" that you didn't actually READ my previous posts before you replied. If you had, you would have seen that I've mentioned a few times that my opinion was that Katich was trying to act like a knob, which would pretty plainly indicate that I wasn't "passing it off as incidental contact". I merely said that Katich disguised his actions enough for there to be some ambiguity, which would make charges extremely difficult to prove to a legal standard. The idea that, in this instant, Broad was somehow in cahoots with the Australians is just dopey.

My view is that the code would be much more effective if it was decided on the balance of probabilities (which would mean that Katich COULD have faced penalty for being such a f-wit), but after the Sydney episode, that is no longer the case. The game is poorer for it, but that is the environment that the game is now stuck with. There was nothing inconsistent about it.

Fourthly, regarding the Watson thing, it is "plain obvious" that you are high off your arse. On the first run, Watson lowered his arm to ensure that there was no contact. On the second run, Gambhir left his arm our ensuring that there WAS contact.

Had Watson left his arm hanging out during the first run and made contact with Gambhir, then he would (and SHOULD) have been up on the same charge. But you can't charge a guy for actively avoiding contact.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Firstly, rest assured that I am weeping over the fact that some messageboard fanboy is questioning my judgement. I'm truly crushed.

No, REALLY.

Secondly, I have, in fact, seen the Katich incident. I saw it live, I saw it on a couple of news bulletins, and it was even tacked on to the Youtube clip that I linked to in my post above.

Thirdly, it is "plain obvious" that you didn't actually READ my previous posts before you replied. If you had, you would have seen that I've mentioned a few times that my opinion was that Katich was trying to act like a knob, which would pretty plainly indicate that I wasn't "passing it off as incidental contact". I merely said that Katich disguised his actions enough for there to be some ambiguity, which would make charges extremely difficult to prove to a legal standard. The idea that, in this instant, Broad was somehow in cahoots with the Australians is just dopey.

My view is that the code would be much more effective if it was decided on the balance of probabilities (which would mean that Katich COULD have faced penalty for being such a f-wit), but after the Sydney episode, that is no longer the case. The game is poorer for it, but that is the environment that the game is now stuck with. There was nothing inconsistent about it.

Fourthly, regarding the Watson thing, it is "plain obvious" that you are high off your arse. On the first run, Watson lowered his arm to ensure that there was no contact. On the second run, Gambhir left his arm our ensuring that there WAS contact.

Had Watson left his arm hanging out during the first run and made contact with Gambhir, then he would (and SHOULD) have been up on the same charge. But you can't charge a guy for actively avoiding contact.

Here, have a tissue. Perhaps when the tears dry up, you could watch said video once again, this time whilst not simultaneously dreaming up fancy excuses that 'could' be doled out for Katich's behaviour. If there was ambiguity on the Katich front, rest assured, even a barely competent lawyer could drum up ambiguity on the Gambhir front, real or imaginary. Does your well of imaginative excuses run dry when it comes to a running batsman 'inadvertently' nudging a bowler?

 

[Bracken]

Here, have a tissue. Perhaps when the tears dry up, you could watch said video once again, this time whilst not simultaneously dreaming up fancy excuses that 'could' be doled out for Katich's behaviour. If there was ambiguity on the Katich front, rest assured, even a barely competent lawyer could drum up ambiguity on the Gambhir front, real or imaginary. Does your well of imaginative excuses run dry when it comes to a running batsman 'inadvertently' nudging a bowler?

Heh. The guy crying "racism" at nothing is telling me to dry my eyes? Too funny.

See, now I remember why I stopped bothering to come to this place. For every bit of intelligent cricket discussion, there are a dozen f-wits like you who froth at the mouth trying to defend their heroes.

Gambhir pleaded guilty. Obviously he wasn't of the opinion that he could get off, and I'm quite sure that the BCCI has access to a "barely competent lawyer" or two.

See, unlike overly dramatic nutsacks like yourself, I don't go out looking for reasons to scream "bias". Therefore, I can watch the incident and make up my mind based on the events, rather than which team the participants play for. It's called "reality".

Try it sometime. I highly recommend it.

Perhaps you missed the fact that I made no excuses for ANYONE. I said that ideally Katich COULD be punished, and that the game would be better if the system allowed referees to use common sense in situations like this.

You, on the other hand, are showing your fanboy side by trying to make out that Gambhir was somehow less at fault than Watson. And you want to talk about MY imagination?

Right...

Actually, the only person I was defending in this case was Broad. While he's deserved his criticism in the past, he has done absolutely nothing wrong in this case.

I'm sure you'll claim otherwise. You'll be wrong, but I'm guessing you're used to that.

 

[Richard]

at some of the complete OTT-ism in this thread.

 

[krkode]

So are these kinds of bans always "next test" bans or is it possible for India to squeeze Gambhir into the next test and sit him out of the first test in another series?

 

[Precambrian]

So are these kinds of bans always "next test" bans or is it possible for India to squeeze Gambhir into the next test and sit him out of the first test in another series?

I think if the appeal is on, the ban will be put on hold. India might use this "loophole" to get Gambhir in the next test. But that would mean he will have to miss the first test against England, as in any case, an annulment of the match-referee's decision is unlikely, as they is nowhere to book a chartered flight to.