Faf doesn't know what all the fuss is about with mintgate

I don't know how to the make this any simpler for you dreadly. If we're taking evidence, then smith admitted to shining the ball the same way. An admission is the best evidence there is. That means he should also be charged...that's the point I'm making, I.e that where there is evidence of "ball tampering" then consistent action should be taken. Our water is just fine bud. Perhaps you should come and drink some.

I am really beginning to think that there is something in the water in South Africa that removes IQ points. Despite being filmed on TV while breaking the law, the South African response is "well, everyone else does it too". The may be, but everyone else is dumb enough to do it front of a TX camera. You lot are on par with Irish rugby fans when it comes to playing the victim.

What about people admitting to "ball tampering"? They should then also be charged right? Simple.

That's because there are now countless HD cameras around the grounds these days. Not so long ago it was SD and only a few cameras. And you didn't see it. The TV station had to find the footage and draw it to your attention..

Produce the evidence and ppl will be charged simple. Im happy for anyone to have video evidence of cheating to be done. This is same man who thought it ok to rubb the ball against a zipper faf thinks he did nothing wrong either

Fine. Pick another analogy. Complaining about getting busted for cheating on a primary school exam when your mates didn't , then. Whatever. My point is that if you have done the wrong thing and get caught, the fact that other people also do the wrong thing does not make your breaking of the rules ok. By all means trawl through the footage of other games and if other people are breaking the rules then charge them too. Go for it. Knock yourselves out. If there is evidence of an offence, punish it. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance.

I only claimed steve must get off his high horse, not others. ;)

Surely it's a little rich to claim that others are on their high horse. Just like the Australian fans, including myself, have our own blinkers on this issue, a few South African commenters seem to have shown an equal inability to accept their own have handled this pretty poorly.

Man your analogy is flawed when comparing it with faf. THE problem with your case is that YOU saw the 20 other people speeding. While in the faf case , every game has cameras everywhere which means that evidence is there for incidence involving other teams. The question is why were those other incident ignored while fafs was given so much attention? Does the term "big three" ring a bell?

'We shine the ball the same way', said Steve Smith earlier yesterday, well that's says a lot about who has been singled out for wrong reasons.

Dutski, the law for speeding is not remotely comparable with putting sugared spit on a ball. Speeding is a law to ensure the safety of people's lives, therefor a very poor comparison to make.

I'm at a loss to understand the whole argument now. Faf is found guilty but then say's he hasn't broken the ball tampering rule? He has always done it and then Steve Smith then says we do the same thing. I assume that means they all deliberately uses lollies to help shine the ball with other blokes using sun block and lip gloss. How then was Afridi found guilty when he put his teeth on the ball. Teeth are naturally in you mouth. Atherton was done for applying dirt WTF. Is it ok to get a mouth full of water and put it on the ball or would that be taking the piss?

Doda Vita, I think it could also be used for the opposite. By adding the sugary 'glaze' as you put it but not accutslly shining it as such, but just adding it to the shiny side will 1.add weight to that side and 2. Create a rough surface on the shiny side which on time the ball will start to reverse swing towards the shiny side instead of away. Could this be why SAF were able to reverse the ball so effectively in this series when we haven't been anywhere near reversing. Maybe Smith has a bit more to learn from Faf...

More importantly Crowded House are getting inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame, and Missy Higgins and Bernard Fanning just covered two of their songs. Neil Finn comes on to show them how it's done - genius - well, all three to be honest...

ADP you are probably right. I know last time I got done for speeding the fact that I'd seen 20 other people speeding that day made absolutely no difference whatsoever. And yes, I know that's my analogy and the issue is about mints etc.

"seems to be a lot of argument here that since they aren’t consistently enforced he should get off". Yes. Or they should all be charged. It is a valid argument (and recognised legal principle) that laws not consistently enforced should not be enforced at all. Anything in between is arbitrary. To use your example - the other people should either be charged upon admitting to the deed, or should be let off along with the Defendant. To charge either without the other is, again, arbitrary.

That's what we all want - isn't it? Consistency? My wish is that the laws are consistently enforced, whereas there seems to be a lot of argument here that since they aren't consistently enforced he should get off. By all means complain away then, but it looks like this to me: Officer: You were caught speeding, sir Defendent: Well other people speed, so I wasn't doing anything wrong Other people: Yes, we also speed on occasions Officer: well, that's alright then. On your way sir.

Dutski, you do realise that Smith's admission that they also do it is actual evidence don't you? Pretty much the most concrete evidence there is.

Dutski - why can't we complain about selective or inconsistent enforcement of a rule? That's good enough reason to complain - surely. When we say "everyone's doing it" we do so to highlight the fact that it is rarely enforced.

I was aware of Smith's comments and it makes no difference to me. If Smith was seen doing it, then charge him. If anyone is seen doing it, charge them. Enforce the rules of the sport, regardless of who it is or whether it impacts on the outcome. As for the 'everyone's doing it' business. Spare me. So what - if everyone is doing it then if there is evidence charge them. If the rule is worthless then rewrite the rule, but don;t go about complaining because someone actually enforced the rule as it stands.