Baggy Green ball tampering: Bancroft, Smith and the Aussie "Leadership Group"

[social]

This is what AB and the other Saffers were sledging about in the first two tests.

Saffers were sledging about ball tampering?

They obviously don’t do irony as the ****s are serial offenders

 

[outbreak]

To an extent that is true but it comes back to the underlying offence and what they were conspiring to do

They were conspiring to commit a Level 2 offence (Level 4 is the worst)

It's why conspiring to commit a terrorist act and conspiring to steal a loaf of bread are dealt with differently under the law

It always and must come back to the underlying offence - in this case it is only a Level 2 offence

Not to mention that so many ex players and talking heads keep saying the coach must have known in this situation or the dressing room would have know/no one just does this randomly. Doesn't that imply that in other ball tampering cases other players would have known or planned as well?

I'm not defending them and harsh penalties need to apply because Australia is always demanding harsh penalties on anyone else who does something wrong but some people are just going too far with things. Rather than a 1 year ban if they want to make it a long punishment i'd rather they did it for x amount of games that covers the home summer because i'm reading one reason why they won't make it a reasonable length in months is the scheduling would mean they won't miss much.

 

[SeamUp]

But is this also part of the build up of team culture and this was the straw that broke the camels back ?

I don't know but it seems like I've read reports that CA are prepared to lose matches to get integrity back. The pay dispute may also be in their thoughts ?

I know ball tampering is cheating and it is so bad how it played out. Almost worse than all previous ball tampering episodes with maybe Atherton/Afridi coming close.

But 1 year ! CA must be losing sponsors and are seriously pissed off and not thinking straight.

Herschelle Gibbs changed his mind on a match fix and didn't perform the action and got 12 months !

 

[SeamUp]

Saffers were sledging about ball tampering?

They obviously don’t do irony as the ****s are serial offenders

Mints and zipper pockets in 2013-2016 - it was a great time.

Did they cross the line ?

 

[cnerd123]

Yea they aren't being punished for the crime of ball tampering, they're being punished for bring the integrity of Australian Cricket into question and for failing as team leaders to set a team culture that aligns with what CA tries to preach.

 

[howardj]

But it still has to come back to the underlying offence (only Level 2)

That's why life bans and multi year bans just won't happen

Legally it would be contested

 

[howardj]

Lehmann is about to resign it is being reported

Link

 

[NZTailender]

But it still has to come back to the underlying offence (only Level 2)

That's why life bans and multi year bans just won't happen

Legally it would be contested

Not necessarily.

Conspiracy theories about Smith being clueless and taking the fall for a newbie aside, what they owned up to accounts to conspiracy and a pre-planned crime. Pre-meditated murder vs crime of passion.

 

[howardj]

Not necessarily.

Conspiracy theories about Smith being clueless and taking the fall for a newbie aside, what they owned up to accounts to conspiracy and a pre-planned crime. Pre-meditated murder vs crime of passion.

As I said earlier, there's a reason why conspiring to commit a terrorist act and conspiring to punch someone in the head are dealt with differently under the law

Because of the underlying offence

It must always come back to that

 

[Starfighter]

Not really. A six month ban wouldn't have sent the right signal. Given how idiotic the Aussie cricket boorishness has been even by their standards, it will do more good than harm long term.

The third word in your third sentence is better applied to the sentiment that a six month/one year ban is a good idea when previous offences including South Africa's current captain twice have gotten zero or one matches.

 

[cnerd123]

But it still has to come back to the underlying offence (only Level 2)

That's why life bans and multi year bans just won't happen

Legally it would be contested

Well to Cricket Australia the fundamental crime committed here is that their image has been tarnished. This is clearly so grave it requires severe punishment.

This is almost entirely driven by the outrage from the fans in Australia more than anything else i feel. This is a PR move more than anything else. I don't think this can be legally contested because Cricket Australia probably has very strict guidelines in their player contracts with regards to punishments that they can fall back on to. I'm sure they don't just go 'we'll let the ICC seen your punishment and we'll support that'

 

[NZTailender]

As I said earlier, there's a reason why conspiring to commit a terrorist act and conspiring to punch someone in the head are dealt with differently under the law

Because of the underlying offence

It must always come back to that

So someone throwing a match/playing for bookies by deliberately bowling a no-ball should come back to the underlying offence - bowling a no-ball?

 

[howardj]

So someone throwing a match/playing for bookies by deliberately bowling a no-ball should come back to the underlying offence - bowling a no-ball?

That's totally ridiculous.

Clearly you are out of your intellectual depth.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

This is really not something I thought I would be saying, but full credit to Joe Root. Good on him for downplaying Broad's tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and not questioning the Ashes result

 

[vicleggie]

There wouldn't have been much fallout if Smith hadn't tried to be a holier than thou captain all along.

Yup.
Arrogant geek

 

[outbreak]

So someone throwing a match/playing for bookies by deliberately bowling a no-ball should come back to the underlying offence - bowling a no-ball?

What? You went off the deep end there. The underlying offence there is taking money to change the outcome of a game which is illegal. Your argument is like saying the underlying offence in shooting someone in the head is discharging a firearm.

 

[NZTailender]

That's totally ridiculous.

Clearly you are out of your intellectual depth.

Thanks for the condescending remark, but perhaps you shouldn't be looking for ways out for your beloved players based on a legal definition that's based on a falsehood to begin with.

The ICC have handed down their ruling for the underlying offence - match bans and fines. Cricket Australia can do whatever the **** they want with their employees based on ambiguous codes of conduct which doesn't seem to really exist until someone brings the game into disrepute like Smith & Co have, resulting in a trial by public opinion. The "legal" type stuff has already been doled out in the official way. Your point is now irrelevant.

 

[cnerd123]

That's totally ridiculous.

Clearly you are out of your intellectual depth.

You're missing the parallel

The underlying offense isn't tampering the ball, just like the underlying offense then isn't bowling a no ball. In both cases a rule of the game was broken during the game. The problem is that in both cases there was clear conspiracy to break that rule - in the case of the no balls, it was for money, and that was a severe crime in the eyes of the authorities and punished as such. In this case, it was to gain undue advantage in a cricket match - this is against the CA brand image and now Smith and Warner will be punished as such

 

[NZTailender]

What? You went off the deep end there. The underlying offence there is taking money to change the outcome of a game which is illegal. Your argument is like saying the underlying offence in shooting someone in the head is discharging a firearm.

No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. Following howardj's line of thinking, that's the argument. Charge for what's happened (ball tampering/discharging a firearm), and ignore the fact they conspired to cheat to win (shooting someone in the head).

The action was tampering. The intent was cheating to get an unfair advantage. It's basic stuff.

 

[BeeGee]

To an extent that is true but it comes back to the underlying offence and what they were conspiring to do

They were conspiring to commit a Level 2 offence (Level 4 is the worst)

It's why conspiring to commit a terrorist act and conspiring to steal a loaf of bread are dealt with differently under the law

It always and must come back to the underlying offence - in this case it is only a Level 2 offence

Again, it's the WHO, not the WHAT. We're talking about the Australian test captain, VC and coach planning to cheat.

If it had just been Bancroft and some Junior players who had planned it, it wouldn't be the big deal that it is.