Which is why it just spins back to the demerits system is broken.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.Just veering to the left a bit , I see what the Aussie boys were saying about Lyon ditching his wife and kids for a young hottie.
A lot has changed since being a curator at the Adelaide Oval hasn't it ?
There is an article in the Daily Telegraph where his ex-wife lambastes him.
Except it didn't, hence the move to the new system.
In what was was the old system a failure? In meeting some old stuffy men's vision of what they feel the spirit of cricket is?
The problem with the old system is it was very arbitrary, and quite often genuinely affected by the boards and players who were being criticised, depending on who you were... they have tried with the new system to put in clear lines and ideas of what is acceptable, since the new system came into place it has caused issues for very similar reasons but at least people can clearly see were the system needs fixing now. I understand people wanting to watch the best players play, but does that make it ok to give some people more problems than others just because of who they are? Rabada deserved the ban, not for these incidents but for the continual infractions. I wished it did not happen but ok this is the system.
It felt like a proper test cricket watching that morning. Ngidi has been excellent. 21 year old, still learning his trade and competing with the best. SA continue to be so lucky with our fast bowlers.
The new system came into place because people have been complaining that some players were being let off lighter than others... they have tried to bring in guide lines and a point system to combat this. But it feels very much like the same thing is happening. That is all I'm saying.
I think the punishment for the Warner send off could very well have been as a result of the Durban incident. It seems a bit unbalanced that shouting "Yes, yes" at a batsman should receive the same penalty as swearing at him or delivering some other form of abuse, but when you take into that both teams had already been warned, and that the idea had already been put forward at a press conference of provoking Warner into doing something that would gain him another point and resulting in him missing a game, then I can understand why that send off got dealt with more harshly than it might have been under other circumstances, with Rabada's history possibly also playing a role.
My point is that just bringing in rigidity and harsh penalties over the top without changing the underlying assumptions or decision-making will just result in perverse outcomes.
Which I agree with. They are trying to treat the symptom and not the underlying problem... I could not care about the system, I care about the consistency.
I agree with a lot of your post but isn't the bolded part pretty self-explanatory? Warner didn't do anything, it doesn't matter that he was being held back by his team mates or not, nothing was done but Rabada on the other hand brushed past Smith. Now it's not like Rabada punched Smith or anything but it was completely unnecessary and pretty intentional too if you ask me.
I would not call it self-explanatory, but fine if that is the distinction I would like to see that in the report by Crowe in the public domain... I feel like what happened with Rabada was more level 1 offence but has been raised to level 2 because of Smiths reaction and what has gone on prior. But how do we know?
