Official Ban/Warning/Fine thread

[krkode]

I think if the appeal is on, the ban will be put on hold. India might use this "loophole" to get Gambhir in the next test. But that would mean he will have to miss the first test against England, as in any case, an annulment of the match-referee's decision is unlikely, as they is nowhere to book a chartered flight to.

Aah, thanks. I guess if India can win this test it will be moot for now, but probably in India's best interest to try and keep Gambhir for the 4th test if this one ends in a draw whether the appeal is winnable or not.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Heh. The guy crying "racism" at nothing is telling me to dry my eyes? Too funny.

See, now I remember why I stopped bothering to come to this place. For every bit of intelligent cricket discussion, there are a dozen f-wits like you who froth at the mouth trying to defend their heroes.

Gambhir pleaded guilty. Obviously he wasn't of the opinion that he could get off, and I'm quite sure that the BCCI has access to a "barely competent lawyer" or two.

See, unlike overly dramatic nutsacks like yourself, I don't go out looking for reasons to scream "bias". Therefore, I can watch the incident and make up my mind based on the events, rather than which team the participants play for. It's called "reality".

Try it sometime. I highly recommend it.

Perhaps you missed the fact that I made no excuses for ANYONE. I said that ideally Katich COULD be punished, and that the game would be better if the system allowed referees to use common sense in situations like this.

You, on the other hand, are showing your fanboy side by trying to make out that Gambhir was somehow less at fault than Watson. And you want to talk about MY imagination?

Right...

Actually, the only person I was defending in this case was Broad. While he's deserved his criticism in the past, he has done absolutely nothing wrong in this case.

I'm sure you'll claim otherwise. You'll be wrong, but I'm guessing you're used to that.

I'm done. You're missing the point and I'm wasting my breath.

 

[NZTailender]

Katich is just too awesome, hence the lack of action.

 

[Smudge]

Heh. The guy crying "racism" at nothing is telling me to dry my eyes? Too funny.

See, now I remember why I stopped bothering to come to this place. For every bit of intelligent cricket discussion, there are a dozen f-wits like you who froth at the mouth trying to defend their heroes.

Gambhir pleaded guilty. Obviously he wasn't of the opinion that he could get off, and I'm quite sure that the BCCI has access to a "barely competent lawyer" or two.

See, unlike overly dramatic nutsacks like yourself, I don't go out looking for reasons to scream "bias". Therefore, I can watch the incident and make up my mind based on the events, rather than which team the participants play for. It's called "reality".

Try it sometime. I highly recommend it.

Perhaps you missed the fact that I made no excuses for ANYONE. I said that ideally Katich COULD be punished, and that the game would be better if the system allowed referees to use common sense in situations like this.

You, on the other hand, are showing your fanboy side by trying to make out that Gambhir was somehow less at fault than Watson. And you want to talk about MY imagination?

Right...

Actually, the only person I was defending in this case was Broad. While he's deserved his criticism in the past, he has done absolutely nothing wrong in this case.

I'm sure you'll claim otherwise. You'll be wrong, but I'm guessing you're used to that.

Maybe this thread will become a CW banning thread after all...

 

[Precambrian]

Maybe this thread will become a CW banning thread after all...

Don't you now accuse me of baiting.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Utter crap. Watson's arm was out, but was withdrawn well before Gambhir ran past. Gambhir didn't deviate an inch to "avoid" Watson's arm- nor did he need to.

Forward to about 1:30 of the clip and see for yourself...

As for Katich, he was more than likely being a complete pecker in my view, but he was subtle enough to make it impossible to prove that he was being intentionally obstructive. Given the events of the last year or so, "more than likely" is no longer enough to face sanction by a match referee, so he didn't get charged.

Katich did have a lot to say, though, so maybe he could have been pulled up for abuse. Given that he was easily within earshot of the umpires when he was gabbing off, I would assume that whatever he said didn't cross the line. Unless Bowden is a part of this huge conspiracy, too.

Even if his actions COULD be proved to be intentional, standing in the guy's way is a far cry from dropping an elbow on the way through. Neither has any place on the field (and both should be worthy of their respective punishments) but to crap on like they are the same crime is idiotic.

So, Watson gave Gambhir a spray, and got fined- and rightly so. Gambhir elbowed the guy, and got rubbed out for a match- and rightly so. Katich carried on like a dildo, but left enough ambiguity as to whether it was anything other than incidental contact, so he wasn't charged- and rightly so.

Exactly HOW was Broad being inconsistent here?

Finally, somebody makes some sense.

Kudos, sir.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, Bracken's on the money here. There's no inconsistency in these decisions, they're different incidents treated on their merits. Ghambir has a history and made intentional physical contact with an opposition player in a manner that could not be explained by any sort of normal in-game activity. A ban is perfectly reasonable, and Katich's case is rather different.

 

[Jono]

Gambhir was wrong in what he did, no doubt. Still reckon Watson's a **** though.

Also still reckon Gambhir would gladly cop the ban as long as he gets to keep the double ton, and the pleasure of smacking Watson over his head for 6 to get to his century.

You can't buy that.

 

[NZTailender]

Katich 'blocking' thing biggest non-event for mine. Not as though he stopped them from getting a run, or obstructed Gambhir trying to get back into his crease to cause a run out.
On first viewing it looked as though they did the 'get out of the way dance' where you try and go one way to let the person pass you, except they go to do the same thing in the same direction, so you go the opposite way, and they do the same.

 

[howardj]

AWTA

I wish people would look at such incidents not through the prism of patriotism, but as a cricket lover first and foremost. I love the game more than any particular team or player.

 

[NZTailender]

I think it appears worse than it is because Gambhir is involved in both incidents. His ban was given because of the incident involving Watson (who was fined).

The Katich-Gambhir incident was not contested so neither party was punished for that. However, because Gambhir was involved in both, on face value it looks as though he's been done in for both with Katich getting away scot free, when in reality they were two completely different incidents and should be viewed as such.

 

[Precambrian]

Katich blocking or not blocking maybe a non-issue, but his subsequent tirade equally matched by Gambhir is what is despicable. They both made the game look just ugly, like schoolkids arguing over a toffee and Bowden stepping in like an exasperated adult.

 

[NZTailender]

And it ended there with Bowden. Issue over.

 

[Johnners]

Gambhir was wrong in what he did, no doubt. Still reckon Watson's a **** though.

Also still reckon Gambhir would gladly cop the ban as long as he gets to keep the double ton, and the pleasure of smacking Watson over his head for 6 to get to his century.

You can't buy that.

"Unit" imo.

 

[Precambrian]

Mitch's verbal spray against Laxman

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/tense-series-on-knifeedge/2008/11/02/1225560646616.html

Excerpts:

Johnson sledged V.V.S. Laxman about remarks he made following his double century in the first innings, when the Indian batsman criticised the Australians' defensive approach and said Ricky Ponting had spoken negatively about his team's hopes in the series.

"There was a few words spoken there. There was no real malice in anything Mitchell had to say," Ponting said last night. "It was about some of the comments VVS had made in the newspapers, that was all he was talking about. The umpires spoke to me and said it had happened three times in the over, I think, and that wasn't acceptable, so I spoke to Mitchell at the break and that was it."

But Ponting insisted the altercations involving Shane Watson, Simon Katich and Johnson did not reflect Australian frustrations at being unable to bowl India out twice. "I would like to think those things are not getting to us on the field. We have got a job to do and if we are struggling to take wickets, that stuff is never going to help you," he said.

"Gambhir and Katich was just a bit of a tangle they got involved in and I went in, Pup went in, the umpires went in and sorted it out there and then and there was nothing more between those guys for the rest of the game. Some of those things don't look good from the sidelines and we have to understand it can sometimes look worse from the sidelines than they do on the field.

"I think both teams have got a bit of work to do to make sure those things don't keep happening."

The touring side arrived at Feroz Shah Kotla yesterday intent on pursuing a win to reprise memories of the famous come-from-behind victory against England at Adelaide Oval two summers ago, but after a couple of early strikes, encountered strong resistance from Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly.

Johnson figured prominently, capturing the wicket of Gautam Gambhir for 36 with a ball that appeared to be missing leg stump, the wicket of the in-form left-hander sparking an exuberant celebration.

Johnson then mouthed off at incoming batsman and man-of-the-match Laxman several times during his next over, prompting umpires Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden to discuss the exchange and approach Australian captain Ricky Ponting as the players left the field for lunch, asking him to control the paceman.

The incident was one of several heated moments in the intensely fought third Test, during which Gambhir received a one-match ban for elbowing Watson in the ribs and Watson was fined 10% of his match fee for provoking him. A confrontation between Gambhir and Katich passed without charges.

"It is hard for me to comment on why action was or wasn't taken," Ponting said. "There have been a couple of other things in the game that have been a bit strange as far as outcomes go as well."

WTF? Take 20 wickets and then talk maaan.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Mitch's verbal spray against Laxman

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/tense-series-on-knifeedge/2008/11/02/1225560646616.html

Excerpts:



WTF? Take 20 wickets and then talk maaan.

Captains only allowed to speak to the media after their team has bowled out the other side twice, are they?

 

[Precambrian]

Referring to Mitchell Johnson.

 

[Jono]

Captains only allowed to speak to the media after their team has bowled out the other side twice, are they?

Reckon Ashraful would prefer that rule actually

 

[Matt79]

Mitch's verbal spray against Laxman

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/tense-series-on-knifeedge/2008/11/02/1225560646616.html

Excerpts:



WTF? Take 20 wickets and then talk maaan.

Sledging just to abuse or without any reason is a bit poor. If you come out in the media and say that the opposing team's fast bowlers displayed a surprising lack of aggression, you're probably going to cop some balls coming at you, and an annoyed quick asking you if that was better.

If the situation was reversed and Watson had come out beforehand and said that Khan and Sharma didn't bowl with enough fire to worry the Aussie batsmen, you don't think they would have looked to make a point?

As Ponting said, three times in an over was over the top, and the umpires warned him, Ponting told him to cool it and he did so. Doesn't make it right, but lets keep it in perspective. As long as he didn't cross the line with any of the terms that he used, I think he's entitled to riposte to Laxman's questioning his heart...

 

[Richard]

He's quite entitled to say whatever, obviously (and provided he wasn't calling Laxman "you ****" etc. I'd not be changing that any time soon either). The point, though, is you look a tad foolish if your team is failing dismally to come close to taking 20 wickets. If you don't care, that's your prerogative, but it's likely that that's how The World will look on it.