Will Ponting get disciplined ?

[C_C]

Stop it now. That's quite a pathetic flame, not worthy of your usually high standard

(of flame).

That was directed to K_P, as in the view he must hold to justify his defence of Ponting's outburst.

 

[luckyeddie]

That was directed to K_P, as in the view he must hold to justify his defence of Ponting's outburst.

I know - I should really have added an enormous

 

[Barney Rubble]

Perfectly justified response by ponting, in no way sourgrapes. Why should he get disiplined? did you even watch the game?

According to Tony Greig, amongst the words he shouted - yes, shouted - to the England dressing room (let alone those he said to umpire Dar, which seemed "aggressive" to say the least) were "f***ing cheats". I'd say that's well over and beyond the bounds of "perfectly justified response". If he did say that he should be fined his entire match fee, because as I'm sure he would say, that's a "f***ing disgrace". He made an idiot of himself, whining and accusing the opposition of cheating because he got run out taking a stupid run. It's not the first time this series he's moaned about an umpiring decision (good or bad), and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Fact is, if Simon Jones had been on the field he wouldn't have been fielding where Pratt was - someone like Bell or KP would have been. Bell is the best fielder in the England team and KP already has one run out this series, so he isn't even justified in complaining that the sub fielder happens to be good. Simon Jones is legitimately injured (you think Vaughan would choose not to have him bowling in the form he's in? Ponting should be glad he's not there), so Ponting has nothing to complain about.

In short, Ponting should stop *****ing and get thinking about the cr*p cricket his team are playing.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well Ponting gets away with all his bile directed at the umpires when a decision goes against him when he's in the field, so I wouldn't be surprised if, yet again, he gets away with it. However this tirade was even worse than the others, and it wasn't the heat of the moment either - he had the best part of a minute whilst the decision went to the third umpire to cool it and he'll have had a very good idea he was out, but he still ranted like a loony anyway.

 

[Langeveldt]

If Saurav Ganguly can be banned for five matches (albeit ODI's) for India bowling a bit slowly, Ponting should cop at least a one match ban...

Whingeing Aussies doesnt have quite the same ring as Whingeing Poms.. But its quite funny to watch at the moment.. After all, the series is still square..

 

[sledger]

totally childish behaviour, he of all people should know better, simply a ridiculous display, a professional of his standard should behave in a befitting way, i expect he shall be punished accordingly.

 

[Barney Rubble]

If Saurav Ganguly can be banned for five matches (albeit ODI's) for India bowling a bit slowly, Ponting should cop at least a one match ban...

Whingeing Aussies doesnt have quite the same ring as Whingeing Poms.. But its quite funny to watch at the moment.. After all, the series is still square..

He's apologised, meaning he'll probably get off a ban - not that he should.

A one-match ban for Ponting, meaning he missed the deciding Test, would be unquestionably THE SINGLE FUNNIEST THING EVER. If there's one thing that could make the whole of Australia suffer more (other than perhaps an injury to Warne) it's that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It was a "toys out of pram" incident & I suspect he will be fined at least a portion of his match fee. He has previous this series, in the second innings of the second test he showed something not unlike dissent at a turned down LBW shout against Simon Jones (think it was Lee bowling & it was plumb for my money, but even so...).

I think taking Harmy off for a rub-down (or whatever) is bordering on not being cricket, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that we would take off our best bowler in the match (Jones) to play a specialist fielder! Ponting just seemed to be agrieved that our sub fielder isn't a total muppet.

 

[Langeveldt]

Perfectly justified response by ponting, in no way sourgrapes. Why should he get disiplined? did you even watch the game?

Similar response if it was, um, say Graeme Smith, throwing his teddies?

 

[Jace11]

Pontings Apology:

"I was disappointed over my dismissal, given that it was at a crucial stage of the game and I had worked very hard to get to that point, I let myself down with my reaction and for that I apologise to those who see me as a role model."

"My frustration at getting out was compounded by the fact I was dismissed once again in a pressure situation and our top order batsman look like a bunch of plums. These are issues which concerned us from the start of the series and were also raised prior to the series."

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting just seemed to be agrieved that our sub fielder isn't a total muppet.

My take on it is that it was more an issue of long-term frustration with England's substitutes always being on the field. You can bet it was on his mind during the innings, he saw Harmison or Hoggard or Flintoff (all of them did it) disappear off the field for 10 minutes, be replaced by the Durham guy and then come back on. As the innings goes on he sees this happen, then Jones is limping, goes off, Ponting is thinking it's another quick rest for a tired bowler (with his team following on and the inevitable tiredness of the bowlers), and as it happens this time he takes a silly run and is brilliantly run out by a direct hit from the fielder who shouldn't be on the ground.

Now, he's obviously wrong in this exact instance as Jones does have a legitimate injury, but I think it's likely that Ponting didn't know this at the time and lashed out accordingly (and regrettably, it must be said). Had it been half an hour earlier, he may well have been in the right, at least in terms of his criticism of England's behaviour and the umpires allowing it.

And for all this "every team does it!" crap, it might happen sometimes when a player is just tired or not, but it really does push the envelope that England make it a clear team policy. There have been times, in India for example I remember it, where an Australian player had cramp or was tired and went off the field for Lee. However, that's different (not in terms of breaking the rules literally, but in terms of how much respect you have for them) from making it a rotation policy where you constantly have a fast bowler off the field for no real reason and have a specialist fielder on instead. I mean, how many times has Brad Hodge been on the field in this series, aside from the Old Trafford test with the Clarke injury, compared to the various guys England has used as subs? It's a rule everyone breaks sometimes, but it's only England who do it so blatantly and consistently that it's as if the rule doesn't exist at all.

Ponting's behaviour was poor, but his complaint was completely justified, I just wish he'd made it a month ago when it was Solanki on for Harmison in the ODIs rather than waiting until day 3 of the fourth test.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pontings Apology:

"I was disappointed over my dismissal, given that it was at a crucial stage of the game and I had worked very hard to get to that point, I let myself down with my reaction and for that I apologise to those who see me as a role model."

"My frustration at getting out was compounded by the fact I was dismissed once again in a pressure situation and our top order batsman look like a bunch of plums. These are issues which concerned us from the start of the series and were also raised prior to the series."

I think you may be paraphrasing slightly there!!!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just a bit...

Ponting's actual apology:

"I was disappointed with my dismissal given that it was a crucial stage of the game and I'd worked hard to get to that position," Ponting said in a statement. I let myself down with my reaction and for that I apologise to those who see me as a role model.

"My frustration at getting out was compounded by the fact that I was run out by a substitute fielder, an issue that has concerned us from the start of this series and one we raised before the series." Australia have been concerned about England's use of substitute fielders since the NatWest Series, arguing that it is a way of giving the home side's fast bowlers a rest. Substitutes are only generally allowed if players are ill or injured but, according to the Laws of Cricket, it is the umpires alone who have the responsibility for letting substitutes take the field and the opposing captain has no right of appeal.

 

[Scaly piscine]

And for all this "every team does it!" crap, it might happen sometimes when a player is just tired or not, but it really does push the envelope that England make it a clear team policy. There have been times, in India for example I remember it, where an Australian player had cramp or was tired and went off the field for Lee. However, that's different (not in terms of breaking the rules literally, but in terms of how much respect you have for them) from making it a rotation policy where you constantly have a fast bowler off the field for no real reason and have a specialist fielder on instead. I mean, how many times has Brad Hodge been on the field in this series, aside from the Old Trafford test with the Clarke injury, compared to the various guys England has used as subs? It's a rule everyone breaks sometimes, but it's only England who do it so blatantly and consistently that it's as if the rule doesn't exist at all.

It's hardly limited to the fast bowlers, Vaughan goes off the field every session virtually - I just don't see what your problem is, a fast bowler will go off for 5 minutes once a session at most - that's perfectly reasonable unless you expect them to do a Paula Radcliffe.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My take on it is that it was more an issue of long-term frustration with England's substitutes always being on the field. You can bet it was on his mind during the innings, he saw Harmison or Hoggard or Flintoff (all of them did it) disappear off the field for 10 minutes, be replaced by the Durham guy and then come back on. As the innings goes on he sees this happen, then Jones is limping, goes off, Ponting is thinking it's another quick rest for a tired bowler (with his team following on and the inevitable tiredness of the bowlers), and as it happens this time he takes a silly run and is brilliantly run out by a direct hit from the fielder who shouldn't be on the ground.

Now, he's obviously wrong in this exact instance as Jones does have a legitimate injury, but I think it's likely that Ponting didn't know this at the time and lashed out accordingly (and regrettably, it must be said). Had it been half an hour earlier, he may well have been in the right, at least in terms of his criticism of England's behaviour and the umpires allowing it.

And for all this "every team does it!" crap, it might happen sometimes when a player is just tired or not, but it really does push the envelope that England make it a clear team policy. There have been times, in India for example I remember it, where an Australian player had cramp or was tired and went off the field for Lee. However, that's different (not in terms of breaking the rules literally, but in terms of how much respect you have for them) from making it a rotation policy where you constantly have a fast bowler off the field for no real reason and have a specialist fielder on instead. I mean, how many times has Brad Hodge been on the field in this series, aside from the Old Trafford test with the Clarke injury, compared to the various guys England has used as subs? It's a rule everyone breaks sometimes, but it's only England who do it so blatantly and consistently that it's as if the rule doesn't exist at all.

Ponting's behaviour was poor, but his complaint was completely justified, I just wish he'd made it a month ago when it was Solanki on for Harmison in the ODIs rather than waiting until day 3 of the fourth test.

I do agree we have really pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable regarding the use of sub-fielders, but as you say Punter's behaviour was poor. Nothing short of a good old-fashioned strop! He or Buchanan should use the proper channels (they may already have done & that may've added to his ire I suppose) because waiting until he's run out by a sub makes it look like sour grapes.

I can totally understand his reaction, but I can't condone it (& realise that you aren't trying to, of course). I think tho that as skipper we have the right to expect a higher standard of behaviour from him. Martyn has had a couple of absolute smellers & he's taken them on the chin.

 

[Jace11]

I'm not a paid up member of the Ponting fan club. Its apparent a few here are. They can't express unbiased views when they post under names like "Ponting_fan".

So be it, if he didn't do anything wrong, he wouldn't issue an apology. He thinks he is going to be disciplined. And rightly so.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's hardly limited to the fast bowlers, Vaughan goes off the field every session virtually - I just don't see what your problem is, a fast bowler will go off for 5 minutes once a session at most - that's perfectly reasonable unless you expect them to do a Paula Radcliffe.

The problem with it is it's against the rules. It's one thing to do it every now and then because your pace bowler wants to change his shoes or wash his hair or feed his cat or whatever, but it's another thing entirely to make it a constant practice to rest all your players and have a specialist fielder out there all the time. You don't get to have your 12th man field for you all the time just because he's good, simple as that. If you don't have an injury or illness sustained in the course of the match then the substitute cannot field. It actually specifically states in the rules that if a fielder wants to say change his shirt a sub cannot come on the field. And if your bowlers are tired, that's just tough. Rest them at third man if you need to, it's what everybody else does.

 

[Barney Rubble]

unless you expect them to do a Paula Radcliffe.

By that I assume you mean falling down and bursting into tears when they get hit for four, then refusing to bowl, claiming the opposition batsmen are too good, and it's a bit warm out there. And breaking into tears once again when Mark Nicholas does the post-play interview, before disappearing completely from the public consicousness, so that they can do the exact same thing repeatedly in the future in county games and not be noticed.

 

[greg]

But isn't the point that the fast bowlers are all encouraged to be constantly taking on fluids these days - which is why the "drinks breaks" are for everyone except the fast bowlers who have their own personal minibars on the boundary. The amount of water they take on, it's hardly surprising that they have to dash off for toilet breaks on a fairly regular basis. I actually think the aussie complaint is a bit of a hangover from the ODI series when England really DID push the boundaries, but I really don't think they've done that much wrong in the test matches.

 

[greg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
unless you expect them to do a Paula Radcliffe.


By that I assume you mean falling down and bursting into tears when they get hit for four, then refusing to bowl, claiming the opposition batsmen are too good, and it's a bit warm out there. And breaking into tears once again when Mark Nicholas does the post-play interview, before disappearing completely from the public consicousness, so that they can do the exact same thing repeatedly in the future in county games and not be noticed.

I think he means have a **** in public