_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I wonder if the ICC would do the same thing if it was Kohli?
-
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.
33rd Match - New Zealand v Pakistan
- Thread starter James
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
Actually I can understand the ICC's strictness even if the broadcasters were not pressuring them tbh. Once you let people get away with it, it'll just be a slippery slope/snow ball effect and get worse and worse. Got to nip it in the bud. Teams have plenty of time to complete their overs and umpires do give them allowances for good cause anyways.
cnerd123
likes this
If not a ban for a captain then what else would be a sufficient enough deterrent? Keeping in mind it is ultimately the captain who is responsible - it's written into the laws.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah couldn't agree more. Ultimately I don't think it's a big enough issue for people to get suspended over, but even if I did I'd just support 500% match fee fines instead. Suspensions rob the fans much more than the slow overrates they're designed to deter.
Borges
International Regular
What if he plays it smart? King Kane pretends to be mildly injured, goes off the field for off and on for a a few sedate overs in the middle and lets someone else take over the captaincy for those periods.
The timer crowd would probably not have accounted for such shenanigans. Would the ICC chicken out in the end, and refrain from imposing any penalty?
The timer crowd would probably not have accounted for such shenanigans. Would the ICC chicken out in the end, and refrain from imposing any penalty?
cnerd123
likes this
They used to just fine players didn't they, but that didn't work, so they made it a code of conduct offence and brought in suspensions.
I doubt the ICC can fine more than 100% match fee. That will disproportionately hurt less popular cricketers from poorer nations, plus now you are potentially taking away money that a player earnt from outside of cricket. I mean, I think they can do it in the literal sense of the word, but given the ICC is made up of member nation bosses it's not a decision that is likely to go through easily. Plus I'm not sure of the legality of that - does the ICC even have the jurisdiction to fine someone more than 100% match fee? A flat fine would fail for the same reason - you can keep poorer players in check but not the richer ones, unless you want to financially ruin poorer cricketers for one offence.
Even a 100% match fee fine would not work for higher profile cricketers who earn bulk of their income from sponsorships and contracts anyways. For sure players would sacrifice their match fee every game, they'll be compensated with a heavier contract and the opportunities that come with being captain.
It's definitely worse for the fans to see guys like Kane miss a game, but what else can the ICC do? If you don't have a deterrent to overrate penalties that works then why even have an overrate to begin with? Just let teams bowl their over at whatever speed they want.
It's daft but cricket is just daft sometimes.
Maybe NZ could just get around this by making Munro captain on paper. Dunnow if or how that would work
I doubt the ICC can fine more than 100% match fee. That will disproportionately hurt less popular cricketers from poorer nations, plus now you are potentially taking away money that a player earnt from outside of cricket. I mean, I think they can do it in the literal sense of the word, but given the ICC is made up of member nation bosses it's not a decision that is likely to go through easily. Plus I'm not sure of the legality of that - does the ICC even have the jurisdiction to fine someone more than 100% match fee? A flat fine would fail for the same reason - you can keep poorer players in check but not the richer ones, unless you want to financially ruin poorer cricketers for one offence.
Even a 100% match fee fine would not work for higher profile cricketers who earn bulk of their income from sponsorships and contracts anyways. For sure players would sacrifice their match fee every game, they'll be compensated with a heavier contract and the opportunities that come with being captain.
It's definitely worse for the fans to see guys like Kane miss a game, but what else can the ICC do? If you don't have a deterrent to overrate penalties that works then why even have an overrate to begin with? Just let teams bowl their over at whatever speed they want.
It's daft but cricket is just daft sometimes.
Maybe NZ could just get around this by making Munro captain on paper. Dunnow if or how that would work
BeeGee
International Captain
It's completely absurd. What if they rest Williamson in the dead rubber to give the bench some game time, Latham captains and they go slow again. Who gets suspended? Williamson who didn't even play or Latham who is only responsible for one game of slow bowling? Or do they just fine Latham for a first offence, in which case what's stopping a habitually slow overs team from just naming a different captain each game?
Last edited:
Athlai
Not Terrible
It's honestly stupid. You know what would fix it? If the ****ing match referee (and umpires) actually timed the gap between overs (and how long an over takes). If penalty runs (or losing your wicket due to time wasting) impacted the live game, thats actually going to see people getting a move on. What other sport deals with problems this way?
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Theoretically it's possible, but Pakistan would have to hammer all three of their remaining opponents to get their net run rate up.
Athlai
Not Terrible
And as a reminder West Indies still has a positive nrr despite having only the one win against Pakistan. They thrashed them sooooo hard. Pakistan NRR is pretty much doomed unless they can chase down a total in like 10 overs.
SL can still jump the NZ (currently on 11 points), on 6 points and playing Eng + SA + Ind, 3 wins = 12 points.
For Pak or Ban it is harder to knock out the NZ, they have to win all their remaining games (they play each other in the final game) to reach 11 points, hope NZ lose the next 3 by large margins, and might sneak ahead on run rate.
So really NZ are in the semis. Best chance of SL / Bang / Pak making the semis is having one of the big three teams explode. I'd be worried if I was an English supporter, only 8 points, and playing Aus + Ind + NZ. Need to win 2 from 3 to be sure. Could make it with 1 win from 3 and hope SL / Bang / Pak don't have a golden streak.
The Eng loss to SL has opened up some interesting scenraios.
BeeGee
International Captain
Indeed. And that doesn't even factor in the fickle English weather. Two losses and a washout would be nearly as bad for England as three losses.
I think the English fans should be rooting for NZ in this game, Pakistan has a real shot at that fourth spot if they win.