• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* West Indies In Australia

A

Andrew Pollock

School Boy/Girl Captain
Top_Cat said:
The cloud of smug from Garner is stifling. Seriously pretty disappointed in his comments. They don't help at all. This whole 'the man is trying to keep us down' is ****ing pathetic. Invoking Orwell is lame.
Click to expand...
Disagree.
Garner has summed it up perfectly with his Orwell references.
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Garner is spot on with his remark. There is no way the punishments meted out were equal.

The India fast bowler Zaheer Khan was fined 80% of his match fee on Tuesday for unsporting conduct during India's dominant victory. Zaheer took three wickets in four balls on the final morning to secure India's 320-run win before attending a hearing with the ICC match referee Chris Broad.

Zaheer pleaded guilty to a Level 2 offence for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game after the dismissal of Matthew Hayden in Australia's second innings on Monday. He was fielding when Hayden was dismissed lbw to Harbhajan Singh and "circled the batsman and shouted at him in an aggressive manner".

"Clearly, this sort of behaviour is not acceptable at any level of cricket - it showed a lack of respect for the player who had been dismissed," Broad said. "Respect for the opposition was something that we talked about in the pre-series meeting I had with both captains and so it was disappointing that Zaheer behaved in this way."

Broad considered Zaheer's good disciplinary record in delivering the fine. "He also pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and was very apologetic while also promising not to repeat the offence," Broad said.
Click to expand...
80% vs 15%.

I am not sure whether Watson had a clean sheet prior to this.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sir Alex said:
Garner is spot on with his remark. There is no way the punishments meted out were equal.



80% vs 15%.

I am not sure whether Watson had a clean sheet prior to this.
Click to expand...
They were a little different. Watto at least was the bowler when the incident happened, Zaheer wasn't involved in the out, ran up and got in Hayden's face. It's a fairly crucial difference.
 
A

Andrew Pollock

School Boy/Girl Captain
Top_Cat said:
They were a little different. Watto at least was the bowler when the incident happened, Zaheer wasn't involved in the out, ran up and got in Hayden's face. It's a fairly crucial difference.
Click to expand...
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
 
S

Streetwise

Banned
Top_Cat said:
They were a little different. Watto at least was the bowler when the incident happened, Zaheer wasn't involved in the out, ran up and got in Hayden's face. It's a fairly crucial difference.
Click to expand...
Come on, Watson was circling Gayle and shouting at him just like Zaheer.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Streetwise said:
Come on, Watson was circling Gayle and shouting at him just like Zaheer.
Click to expand...
Watto was the bowler, though. Having been on the receiving end of both types myself, I rate it far worse for a bloke not involved in the wicket to have a chirp at me as I walk off than the bowler who just got me. Don't think it's a radical viewpoint, either.
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Top_Cat said:
They were a little different. Watto at least was the bowler when the incident happened, Zaheer wasn't involved in the out, ran up and got in Hayden's face. It's a fairly crucial difference.
Click to expand...
I disagree Topcat. Whether he is bowler or not does not give him a "right" to do stuff like that in the face of the batsman.

Also note the double standards, Watson was fined 10% of matchfee for the same offence in the Indian series in 2008, by Chris Broad. He repeated it and copped a 5% increase! While Zaheer and Munaf were fined 80% and 75% for their first offence.
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Top_Cat said:
Never said that. Jesus. Go back a couple of pages before you decide I'm defending Watson.
Click to expand...
I did not say you are supporting Watson. But I don't think ICC code of conduct prescribes different penalties based on whether you were the bowler or not.

Fidel Edwards fined 40% on similar incident. And that was his first offence.

There is no way Watson could escape with such a ridiculously small fine despite doing it twice in the front of the same match referee.
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Sir Alex said:
I did not say you are supporting Watson. But I don't think ICC code of conduct prescribes different penalties based on whether you were the bowler or not.

Fidel Edwards fined 40% on similar incident. And that was his first offence.

There is no way Watson could escape with such a ridiculously small fine despite doing it twice in the front of the same match referee.
Click to expand...
Probably 40% of Fidel's match fees equals the same amount of money as Watson's 15%.
 
A

Andrew Pollock

School Boy/Girl Captain
Sir Alex said:
I did not say you are supporting Watson. But I don't think ICC code of conduct prescribes different penalties based on whether you were the bowler or not.

Fidel Edwards fined 40% on similar incident. And that was his first offence.

There is no way Watson could escape with such a ridiculously small fine despite doing it twice in the front of the same match referee.
Click to expand...
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Glenn Mcgrath

1. Australiav Sri Lanka, 2nd Test, 9th - 13th July 2004 at Cairns - Breachof Code 1.4 Using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting and/or themaking of an obscene gesture. Fined 25% of match fee.

Glenn McGrath has been fined 25 percent of his match fee, after breaching the ICC's Code of Conduct with an audible obscenity. McGrath was reported to the match referee, Chris Broad, for a level 1 offence, after an lbw appeal against Sanath Jayasuriya was turned down. Jayasuriya later fell for 22, as the second Test against Sri Lanka at Cairns was drawn.

"It's important that all players continue to observe ICC guidelines that protect the values, integrity and spirit of the game," said Broad. "The on-field umpires came to the defence of McGrath during the hearing given his exemplary behaviour prior to the offence. Evidence was brought to the hearing that Ricky Ponting approached McGrath and immediately took control of the situation, and we were satisfied that this was the appropriate course of action."
Click to expand...
:laugh:

2. Australia v South Africa, 3rd Test - 2-6 January 2006 at Sydney - Breach of code 1.4 - Using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting and/or the making of an obscene gesture. Severe Reprimand

Australia's Glenn McGrath has been officially reprimanded for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct during his country's third Test match against South Africa in Sydney.

In a hearing after play on the fourth day, McGrath was found to have breached Level 1.4 of the ICC Code which relates to "using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting and/or the making of an obscene gesture" by ICC Match Referee Chris Broad.

Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and a maximum penalty of a fifty per cent fine of a player's match fee. The charge was brought by on-field umpires Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden and third umpire Bob Parry.
Click to expand...
Match referee in both incidents? No prizes for guessing! Not only Mcgrath was booked under the same level, but punishment was actually less!!!
 
A

Andrew Pollock

School Boy/Girl Captain
Has anyone considered that Shane Watson is Chris Broad's love child.

Compare Watson to Stuart Broad

Both over 6ft
Both blonde
Both bat and bowl a bit
Both act like 8 year olds
Both are Lady/Boys
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Shane Watson's disciplinary record

1. India v Austalia, 29 October 2008, Delhi
Level 1 breach of code C1 - Players shall at all times conduct play within in the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws of Cricket.
Action - Fined 10% of match fee.

2. Pakistan v Australia, 7 May 2009, Dubai Sports City -
Level 1 breach of code 1.3 - Showing dissent at an umpire's decision.
Action - Fined 25% of match fee - Match Referee - Jeff Crowe

3. West Indies v Australia, Dec 2009, Perth -
Level 1 breach of code C1 - Players shall at all times conduct play within in the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws of Cricket.
Action - Fined 15% of match fee. - Match Referee - Chris Broad

In a span of about 13 months and about that number of test matches, he has had already 3 citings for bad behaviour on field. And yet he is still getting booked under level 1 offence. What a joke!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top