Confirmed: Rabada banned for two matches

[stephen]

I much prefer the idea of penalty runs and the ability to send off players than banning people.

Rabada is an idiot but the sport is worse when he's benched.

I think players would curtail their bad behaviour much faster if the scoreboard went up if they did something stupid.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, let's use a bit of common sense about this eh?

 

[stephen]

Yeah, let's use a bit of common sense about this eh?

This is the ICC we're talking about. The same body who removed the associates from the World Cup because they're too afraid of India being terrible.

Common sense isn't really their forte.

 

[Spark]

In general either adding egregious ill-discipline as a potential mode of dismissal and extending the framework regarding running on the pitch strike me as vastly more preferable to this.

 

[the big bambino]

You've already started on that slippery slope when you go 'Zero tolerance on physical contact'

What's the difference between a slap and a high five? Is slapping someone on the back assault now? What if you move to stop the ball but the non-striker batsman is in your way and you collide? Did he barge into you now? Did he make cricket physical?

Don't panic! Notice how Rabada was penalised but Flintoff praised? Seems like cricket has managed to deal effortlessly with both situations whereas you see slippery slopes and probably dragons. How about this though ***** - Lyon was fined for dropping the ball near ABdV. You didn't complain and I'm sure you're regretting missing the opportunity of defending an Australian from the unjust caprice of cricket law. But look at the slippery slope you are on. What if short leg drops a catch near a batsmen? Why its the end of cricket as we know it.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Once you allow deliberate physical contact on the field, all bets are off re. player behaviour. You'll end up with a bloke wrapping a bat around a bowler's head once you allow it to start.

This is a preposterous statement.

 

[cnerd123]

Don't panic! Notice how Rabada was penalised but Flintoff praised? Seems like cricket has managed to deal effortlessly with both situations whereas you see slippery slopes and probably dragons. How about this though ***** - Lyon was fined for dropping the ball near ABdV. You didn't complain and I'm sure you're regretting missing the opportunity of defending an Australian from the unjust caprice of cricket law. But look at the slippery slope you are on. What if short leg drops a catch near a batsmen? Why its the end of cricket as we know it.

You're missing the point here. The fact that you create a hardline stance on something so irrelevant with such high penalties means that, as Spark has explained, you now make it a game of debating what touch is appropriate and what isn't, instead of letting the players and fans focus on the cricket.

Obviously we don't want physical fights on the field, but something like this does not deserve to have such a heavy handed penalty. There was no intention, there was no damage, it might have been a bit rude, but that's fine. It's elite sports. Rudeness happens. Cop it and move on and focus on the cricket. Trying to micromanage the behaviours of the cricketers in the goal of some lofty idea of 'Spirit of the Game' serves nobody and achieves nothing. Just ruins the game for all of us.

 

[the big bambino]

I can't miss something you aren't providing. The rule is designed to stop avoidable contact that could escalate into something more aggressive. A nudge to the ribs, followed by a kick to the knee then a threat to use the bat as a club. There is no "heavy handed penalty". he is in trouble because of an accumulation of smaller infractions. Therefore he was given ample opportunity to reform. Just like a driver who goes over the limit by just 10ks might get the one demerit point that loses him his licence.

 

[cnerd123]

I can't miss something you aren't providing. The rule is designed to stop avoidable contact that could escalate into something more aggressive. A bat to the ribs, followed by a kick to the knee then a threat to use the bat as a club. There is no "heavy handed penalty". he is in trouble because of an accumulation of smaller infractions. Therefore he was given ample opportunity to reform. Just like a driver who goes over the limit by just 10ks might get the one demerit point that loses him his licence.

He got 3 demerit points of that nothing shoulder rub, and it takes just 8 within a 2 year period to get banned. It's an unreasonable punishment.

Ofc he didn't get banned due to this incident. Thats clumsy wording on my end. And ofcourse the punishment is justified, he knew the rules and broke them. But you're just being stubborn by not seeing how ridiculous these rules are, and how they ruin the game for players and spectators while accomplishing nothing.

 

[Spark]

I can't miss something you aren't providing. The rule is designed to stop avoidable contact that could escalate into something more aggressive. A nudge to the ribs, followed by a kick to the knee then a threat to use the bat as a club. There is no "heavy handed penalty". he is in trouble because of an accumulation of smaller infractions. Therefore he was given ample opportunity to reform. Just like a driver who goes over the limit by just 10ks might get the one demerit point that loses him his licence.

The driver going 10km/h over the limit is actually posing a significant risk to the actual lives of other people on and around the road.

A guy swearing at a bowler poses a threat to the sensitive egos of certain cricket journalists and nothing more.

 

[SeamUp]

Just take a moment and look at how serious this moment is for cricket ? It is nothing. KG didn't even look around to see if the touch hurt Steve Smith or not. That to me shows there was no real intention. Such a grey area. Yes, he needs to be smarter but lets look at this moment in isolation.

 

[cnerd123]

People getting worked up over that level of physical contact and feel punishment should be dealt out need to have a trip on Asian public transport.

 

[Spark]

People getting worked up over that level of physical contact and feel punishment should be dealt out need to have a trip on Asian public transport.

European rush hour trams/light rail is petty packed too tbf

 

[Second Spitter]

In baseball, if a pitcher gives a send off to a hitter, then next time the pitcher's team bats, the opposing pitcher intentionally throws at the next (or sometimes best) hitter of theteam. The umpire will then issue warnings to both teams and ejections follow for any retaliation.

Because it is not the pitcher who gets hit, but his teammate, pitchers do not usually give send offs because then you become accountable to your teammates. Self-policing usually works, sometimes the system breaks down and you get "all-in-brawls", but lets be honest, who here doesn't want to see Warner get punched in the face?

 

[Heboric]

If we're having a broken windows, no tolerance policy on physical contact then I wonder if Flintoff should have been fined under the current system for this:

It's ridiculous to strip away context, intent, and actual harm caused by said contact. Whoops I bumped into another player. Now I broke the spirit of the game and need to miss Test matches. Ridiculous.

***ual harrassment

 

[Dendarii]

Just take a moment and look at how serious this moment is for cricket ? It is nothing. KG didn't even look around to see if the touch hurt Steve Smith or not. That to me shows there was no real intention. Such a grey area. Yes, he needs to be smarter but lets look at this moment in isolation.

I think the problem is that it's difficult to judge intention after the fact. It may not have been intentional, but it was avoidable as if he hadn't been up in Smith's face then the contact would never have taken place, and that's ultimately what's cost him.

 

[Burgey]

What’s ultimately cost him is he’s acted like a duck for two years leading up to this. The bloke is a crazy good bowler but it isn’t like he hasn’t had warnings about his behaviour. Hell, if he hadn’t brushed Smith the Warner send off probably would have tipped him over the suspension threshold.

 

[Bijed]

Regarding whether or not banning a player is the right deterrent to try to prevent this kind of behaviour, I do think it has it's positives over the other suggested solutions of fines and penalty runs. I basically don't think fines would work. I know it's a different situation, but fines were fairly widely regarded on here as inadequate solution to combating slow over-rates and I know that's a case of the captain deciding that the money is worth less than what they percieve to be the benefit of wasting time, but I think the fact that it didn't really stop anyone shows that it's possibly something that players' care relatively little enough about that it won't prove a deterrent to an essentially emotional action.


Penalty runs would appear to be a good way as it's something players care about that whilst it might not stop them from doing something, it'll have enough of an impact that they'll not do it again, at least for a while, the advantage over bans being that fans don't lose out on being able to see them play and the quality of the cricket isn't lessened by the absence of a class player.


I do have couple of comments, however. One is that a few people have commented the advantage later in a series that the opposing team would gain from a good player being banned could incentivise them to try and bait them into doing something stupid and I'd imagine than the chance of strengthening a teams position in a match would have much the same effect.


The other comment I have regarding the implementation of a penalty run system, is that as they would have a fairly immediate impact on the match, decisions regarding whether to award them and how many to award would have to be made fairly quickly, hopefully most incidents would be straightforward enough so that the correct conclusion can be reached promptly, but I fear that inevitably mistakes will be made which could potentially impact the result of a game (I know it'd be an uncommon scenario, but it's still a possibility) - at least if someone were to be banned due to incorrect awarding of demerit points, they could appeal it before the next game, get it overturned and no harm done.

 

[Dendarii]

Hell, if he hadn’t brushed Smith the Warner send off probably would have tipped him over the suspension threshold.

I don't think it would have. Wasn't he on five points before the match? The Smith incident gave him three, which is what triggered the ban, but if it had just been the Warner send off then he would only have gone up to six.

 

[Coronis]

KG didn't even look around to see if the touch hurt Steve Smith or not. That to me shows there was no real intention.

I honestly haven't been following this but this is an incredibly naive point you're trying to argue.