Confirmed: Rabada banned for two matches

[Daemon]

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.

Not only is this post lacking any insight, that last bit is also incorrect. Very low quality stuff.

 

[Starfighter]

For those suggesting penalty runs how are they going to apply? Currently they are for things directly affecting play (objects on the field, ball tampering, damaging the pitch) and whatever that stupid new rule was. But things like bad behaviour aren't really a direct part of play. How many penalty runs are appropriate? Some actions are perhaps more objectionable than others and would need more. But should it be five? Twenty? Fifty? How will things be decided? The umpires might not have a good view or might have missed a significant incident. Are we supposed to have a conference between the umpires and the match referee in the middle of the game or should it all be decided at the end of the day? Then comes the issue of personal responsibility. If the penalty is small (say five runs) then there will be little incentive for that person to change their behaviour. Perhaps they should be deducted from that person's runs tally for the innings, or added to their bowling analysis. But how would you decide that? And the whole idea seems very artificial in my opinion. For those who have raised the idea of a team trying to rile up an opposition player and get them banned, would it be any different if penalty runs were at stake? Especially as they will immediately affect the match?

My problem with this system is that it isn't all that clear and the imposition of penalties has not been very consistent and somewhat eyebrow raising at times. The problem is that someone has to interpret actions and assign what level penalty they think is appropriate. There are some people here who think that Rabada bumping Smith was nothing. I personally thought that in the last test Lyon was merely plonking the ball down without paying attention to where, and ABdV merely happened to be there, yet I've seen some people (elsewhere) call it the most disrespectful thing they've ever seen on the cricket field. Who judges?

 

[StephenZA]

I still find the yellow, red card most amusing.... people are upset because Rabada can not play in the next Tests, but how would they have felt if, by the judgement of the umpire, he was sent off middle of his spell? For me the worst idea ever!

 

[SeamUp]

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

KG has turned around to appeal the decision.
Smith has started walking off
KG turns around , Smith is in his space
KG is walking towards a player to high five him near the line of Smith
Smith makes a mountain of a mole hill (not concerned about this though really)


Body contact. It is such a grey area. I honestly don't think you can say with any certainty that it was deliberate.

I am of the opinion that screaming in Warner's face is not on and far worse and worth 1 demerit OK but for all that has gone on in this series to believe Crowe can say with any certainty that , that was deliberate and deserved 3 demerit points because of his 'history' playing a big role. I dunno.

Think we got to be smart for the game's sake. We can say that he needs to be punished and his talents doesn't mean a thing but you have to be dead certain in the first place and then getting trivial over something so small because it is in the rule books in the first place is also up for debate.

 

[StephenZA]

KG has turned around to appeal the decision.
Smith has started walking off
KG turns around , Smith is in his space
KG is walking towards a player to high five him near the line of Smith
Smith makes a mountain of a mole hill (not concerned about this though really)


Body contact. It is such a grey area. I honestly don't think you can say with any certainty that it was deliberate.

I am of the opinion that screaming in Warner's face is not on and far worse and worth 1 demerit OK but for all that has gone on in this series to believe Crowe can say with any certainty that , that was deliberate and deserved 3 demerit points because of his 'history' playing a big role. I dunno.

Arbitrary choices....

 

[Days of Grace]

I think some people are trying to defend Rabada because they want to see a great bowler in action in the next two tests, and who can blame them? If this was a medium pacer who took 2/100 no-one would care.

 

[cnerd123]

tbh I much rather leave judgement on on-field behaviour in the hands of the on-field umpires than people sitting off the field. The on-field umpires see and hear most of what goes on during the game, and will have the best understanding of the situation as it unfolds. Those sitting off the field aren't only disconnected from the action, but can have their interpretation of the event skewed by commentators, media, and possibly even coaches/managers.

Plus it is the umpires who are supposed to control the game anyways. They're the ones who enforce the laws, keep the captains in check regarding stuff like overrate, and handle all the issues with stuff like rain, ball changes, damage to the pitch, etc etc. Only makes sense that they be the ones who decided where the arbitrary 'line in the sand' regarding player conduct is. It also means the standards for behaviours change on a game-by-game basis, as per the whims of the umpires for that game, and that's basically in line with everything else in cricket anyways - wides, LBWs, whether or not they are calling front foot no-balls...

 

[burr]

Man this sucks.

 

[StephenZA]

I think some people are trying to defend Rabada because they want to see a great bowler in action in the next two tests, and who can blame them? If this was a medium pacer who took 2/100 no-one would care.

They would care less... but does not make the decision any less right/wrong just less attention.

 

[StephenZA]

Just actually watched video again... and considering that he can still appeal I really think this could be dropped to a single demerit charge. Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Heboric]

Just actually watched video again... and considering that he can still appeal I really think this could be dropped to a single demerit charge. Will be interesting to see what happens.

I will be very surprised if ICC changes its decision

 

[Shri]

Rabada - SA's very own hb.

 

[Starfighter]

I think some people are trying to defend Rabada because they want to see a great bowler in action in the next two tests, and who can blame them? If this was a medium pacer who took 2/100 no-one would care.

I was going to say this as well. Even if some who have are claiming that otherwise it's clear that a quite a few peoples' judgements are a bit emotionally clouded. Certainly these talking about how it will damage the spectacle or outright declaring the rules ridiculous without giving a good reason why are going down this route.

Also for those claiming that it's 'broken windows' or 'zero tolerance' thing with physical contact, is it? I'd like to see the judgements on a couple of more obviously accidental/uncontrolled contacts first.

People talk about where Test cricket is going. For me, the small battles are important. It's about KG (Rabada) running in for 15 overs trying to get someone out and when he does, he has to show some sort of passion.

This is another line of argument I'm not getting here. There are myriad ways of showing passion on the cricket field. I believe we had dual threads recently about bad and good wicket celebrations. Is it much of a stretch to say that 'running down the pitch and bumping into the opposition' and 'obnoxiously yelling in someones face like an idiot' are not ideal ways of showing passion? You can express passion and still be a respectful human being.
I especially dislike this line of thought as such behaviours filter down and having been on the receiving end of 'passion' a few times I'd rather that these examples weren't being set.

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.

Now there's a discussion I could have involving potential flaws in a much cherished scientific paper, though the stats aspects are a bit out of my league. And that'd just be the start. But that's really beside the point, so I won't.

 

[quincywagstaff]

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.

Yep, fines have been shown to be largely useless for decades in curbing bad behaviour on the field. Not particularly crazy about penalty runs; for one thing they'd mean a heck of a lot more in a low-scoring game than a high-scoring one (unless there's a ratio involved which I doubt). And what if a batting team is trying to save the game? The bowling side would be happy to give up penalty runs if it meant upsetting the opposition batsmen in their concentration.

Penalties are only effective if they have an impact and obviously this will have a big one on the series and it frustrates cricket fans who want to see the best play. That's what penalties should do, have an impact. Instead of trying to water them down to meaningless fines hopefully this will ensure cricketers learn the consequences and don't throw away Tests so wastefully.

 

[quincywagstaff]

One final thing about Rabada, the first time I saw him giving sendoffs was back in 2016 at the D/N Adelaide Test when he bowled Nic Maddison on debut for a duck (you can see it here at around the 2:25 mark). It's really a failure of the South African leadership as much as Rabada himself that they didn't clamp down on this habit there and then so it didn't get to this stage.

 

[StephenZA]

Penalties are only effective if they have an impact and obviously this will have a big one on the series and it frustrates cricket fans who want to see the best play. That's what penalties should do, have an impact. Instead of trying to water them down to meaningless fines hopefully this will ensure cricketers learn the consequences and don't throw away Tests so wastefully.

And I would 100% agree with this if there seemed to be some consistency... it is the lack of consistency that is the issue here. Is the evidence clear that it was a deliberate contact by Rabada onto Smith such that it was worth 3 demerit points? or is this because of Smiths reaction, or is it because of what happened previously in the series? Or is it because of a little bit of everything.

I find it difficult to believe that a brush past Smith has given him 3 demerit points, I think that it was 'continuous' issues that has got Rabada into trouble, based on what had already gone on in the series... which then tells me that lines are being arbitrarily drawn based on what is 'felt' and also on the reaction of the 'offended' player. This I have a problem with.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think it should be too difficult for him. Should just direct his anger and "**** yeah"s after getting a wicket to no one in particular like most bowlers do instead of looking at the batsman while doing it.

 

[StephenZA]

I don't think it should be too difficult for him. Should just direct his anger and "**** yeah"s after getting a wicket to no one in particular like most bowlers do instead of looking at the batsman while doing it.

And Rabada said exactly the same thing.... "I won't change the way I express myself but I just will get far away from the batter," he said. Except he has been demerited for "audible" swearing previously.

 

[StephenZA]

sport24._Cricket/Proteas/rabada-ban-icc-sweating-silly-stuff

​Match referee Jeff Crowe has pronounced that Rabada “had the opportunity to avoid the contact” in his shoulder-brush flashpoint with Baggy Greens captain Steve Smith.
Curiously, I saw no mention -- in what looks suspiciously like a two-to-tango situation from video evidence – of whether the saintly (of course) Smith “had the opportunity to avoid the contact” himself.

The trouble with the ICC getting increasingly, obsessively involved in behavioural policing, of course, is that sanction becomes painfully so subjective, and thus public anger-provoking, an exercise. In a fractious series so far (though many of us remain relatively chilled about that, I suspect … it’s SA v Australia), did Rabada really warrant the savage extent of his punishment, in relation to some of the other acts of baiting disrespect evident on the field of combat?

Nathan Lyon got off lightly, by contrast, for his contemptuous “ball drop” incident on (OK, Australians, next to!) a sprawled AB de Villiers, as did Mitch Marsh for his again fairly novel expletives to Rabada as a departing batsman in the second innings of the Port Elizabeth Test. Marsh seemed to play much of the contest like a bear with a sore head, somehow, yet I have always understood the etiquette to be that, however heated things may have been during your vigil, when a batsman is quite legitimately dismissed you get your head down and stride uncomplainingly for the hut. Beaten … fair dinkum, and all that.

Marsh’s sanction? Twenty percent of his match fee, which is a bit like saying someone else might just have to pay for one of his restaurant steaks with black pepper sauce and chips in the hiatus between Test matches.

Which actions, of all we’ve seen from individuals in the fortnight thus far, have really been worse?

Um, how long is a piece of string?

 

[quincywagstaff]

And I would 100% agree with this if there seemed to be some consistency... it is the lack of consistency that is the issue here. Is the evidence clear that it was a deliberate contact by Rabada onto Smith such that it was worth 3 demerit points? or is this because of Smiths reaction, or is it because of what happened previously in the series? Or is it because of a little bit of everything.

I find it difficult to believe that a brush past Smith has given him 3 demerit points, I think that it was 'continuous' issues that has got Rabada into trouble, based on what had already gone on in the series... which then tells me that lines are being arbitrarily drawn based on what is 'felt' and also on the reaction of the 'offended' player. This I have a problem with.

It was because of physical contact which the cricket authorities (rightly imo) see as a total no-no and needs to never even mildly be tolerated. It's what got Gautam Gambhir suspended during the 2008 series against Australia when he elbowed Shane Watson deliberately (after Watson was sledging him) while running between the wickets (I think it was his second incident involving that). And that was under the old system where you had to behave pretty badly to get a suspension of any kind.