Yeah, I agree that Bradman was a fictional character.As expected CA did a massive cover up yesterday. They saved Steve Smith last year during DRS controversy. and are now saving their fast bowlers now. only in Australia batsmen tamper the ball and bowlers have no idea. You want me to believe that leadership group consist of 2 players. CA doing cover up since 1880s
Well, if we're playing this game… here's the cast line up for 'Breaking Balls'Debuting next summer on Netflix : "Making a Tamperer"
Bancroft = Brendan Dassey
Smith = Avery
Warner = Halbach's dodgy as **** ex-BF.
Sutherland = Ken "The Prize" Kratz
Is Rabada's QC available? Don't think he can really claim the humiliation card can he, given that my impression is that that's pretty much how everyone in Australia is feeling at the minute because of him.I would be lawyering up and insisting on his right to a hearing in which his lawyer would argue:
Is Saul Goodman that Lawyer who got Rabada off..feels like it should be.Well, if we're playing this game… here's the cast line up for 'Breaking Balls'
Lehmann is Gus Fring, the evil mastermind.
Sutherland is Mike Ermentraut, his loyal enforcer who knows what he is doing is wrong but can't not see the dollar signs.
Steve Smith is Walter White, who could have been a great and noble man before wickedness turned his head.
Bancroft is Jesse Pinkman, his young and misguided accomplice.
Warner is the meth nazi, obviously.
Jane Margolis is Matt Renshaw, who's absence reminds everyone of the threat hanging over them.
Gale Boetticher is Tim Paine, being asked from above to take over the running of the empire despite being clearly out of his depth.
Fanie De Villiers is Hank Schrader putting all the pieces together.
And Lyon and Hazlewood are Skyler and Walt Jr, who claim ignorance but nobody is quite sure what to believe...
And I guess it would be hard to resist the Marsh brothers as Skinny Pete and Badger just for the heck of it.
I don't know much about lawyering and **** but you'd have to think he'd successfully appeal such a punishment easily, given the comparatively extremely lenient punishments as precedents in similar offensesI would not be accepting a 12-month ban or even a six month ban if I was Steven Smith
I would be lawyering up and insisting on his right to a hearing in which his lawyer would argue:
- the normal sanction for this is a fine and a few demerit points (what Bancroft got)
- it's only a Level 2 offence
- I fessed up (he's was very forthcoming at the press conference)
- I have no black mark against me in this area
- I've already been dealt a massive penalty (stripped of captaincy, sent home in disgrace, 1 Test ban, public humiliation)
I think its that Smith has a contract with CA that allows them to dish out punished as they deem fit, and has probably signed somewhere to adhere to the CA Code of Conduct, which probably carries strict punishments for violating itI don't know much about lawyering and **** but you'd have to think he'd successfully appeal such a punishment easily, given the comparatively extremely lenient punishments as precedents in similar offenses
I mean as a "prosecuter" how would you justify it, legally? "He's Australian and they are sanctimonious so he deserves a harsher punishment"?
oh yeah contracts. I forgot about those things.I think its that Smith has a contract with CA that allows them to dish out punished as they deem fit, and has probably signed somewhere to adhere to the CA Code of Conduct, which probably carries strict punishments for violating it
We're CA given extra power to dole out punishments as part of the renegotiated contracts recently, maybe in exchange for more cash for the senior players? No idea if that's true but it would be seriously satisfying if it wasoh yeah contracts. I forgot about those things.
I think someone earlier mentioned that there'd likely be more controls on it than 'as they see fit'. Such a serious punishment would probably have to go through a hearing etc etc.I think its that Smith has a contract with CA that allows them to dish out punished as they deem fit, and has probably signed somewhere to adhere to the CA Code of Conduct, which probably carries strict punishments for violating it
well yea ofcourse, but the idea is that any punishment they dole out will be legally appropriate. They aren't going to fly off the cuff here. They aren't reckless. They have their lawyers and their documents and their due processes and whatever they hit him with is more likely than not to be iron clad.I think someone earlier mentioned that there'd likely be more controls on it than 'as they see fit'. Such a serious punishment would probably have to go through a hearing etc etc.
I think so. Warner is an idiot, so won't defend him. But the overreaction is just too much. I know other Aussie cricketers doing stuff that was way out of line than this incident. This is just too much drama over a petty incident. Who cares? They did something childish on the field and that's it, no need to keep going on and on about it. Not walking when you are clearly out is also a big offence in my eyes, don't see anyone get penalised for that.I haven't really followed the CA vs players wage dispute at all.
Do people think that CA now trying to punish people like Smith/Warner for speaking up and reward people like Lehman for keeping quiet?
Just like what the ICC hit Rabada with was iron clad. I would be staggered if there wasn't some sort of internal appeals process, and I doubt that CA could legally deny some external ones either. And it would be very easy to argue that lengthy suspension isn't appropriate.well yea ofcourse, but the idea is that any punishment they dole out will be legally appropriate. They aren't going to fly off the cuff here. They aren't reckless. They have their lawyers and their documents and their due processes and whatever they hit him with is more likely than not to be iron clad.