By looking up to the changerooms while considering a possible decision review during the second Test against India in Bangalore, Australian captain Steve Smith blatantly broke the rules. For that, he must be punished.
Indian captain Virat Kohli was justifiably livid during and after the game, when he stated that while batting he had twice seen Australian players glancing up to their dressing rooms while weighing up reviews.
I find it hard to believe Australia have a swindling scheme in place where players routinely look to the dressing rooms for signals from coaches or teammates on whether they should use the DRS. Such systematic cheating would amount to one of the lowest-ever moments in Australian cricketing history.
Regardless, Smith’s actions were blatant and in flagrant contravention of the laws of the game, which state players cannot seek guidance in making a review from anyone but their on-field teammates.
Australia should be well aware of this rule. Yet Peter Handscomb, who was batting with Smith at the time, suggested after the match he did not know of it.
After Smith was adjudged LBW from a shooter of a delivery by Umesh Yadav he consulted with Handscomb, who gestured to Smith to look up towards the Australian change rooms.
When Smith did just that, umpire Nigel Llong rushed over to Smith and sent him off the ground. Handscomb tweeted: “I referred smudga [Smith] to look at the box… my fault and was unaware of the rule. Shouldn’t take anything away from what was an amazing game!”
Smith, meanwhile, didn’t try to plead ignorance on the laws surrounding DRS, instead admitting his actions had been a “brain fade”.
“I got hit on the pad and looked down to Petey and he said, ‘look up there’,” Smith said. “So I turned around and it was a bit of a brain fade on my behalf. I shouldn’t have done that. I was looking at our boys, so shouldn’t have done that and it was a bit of a brain fade.”
Although Kohli claimed Australia had made a habit of seeking DRS advice from the stands at Bangalore, Smith was insistent he had never before looked to the rooms amid a potential review.
We can only hope Smith is being truthful. Already this incident has taken the shine off one of the finest Test matches of the modern era. In an age when all too few Tests are truly thrilling, the Bangalore match gripped viewers for all four days with its dramatic twists and turns.
It will be fascinating to see how the ICC responds to the DRS furore. This is, to my knowledge, the first time there has been an accusation of a Test cricketer seeking guidance from the changerooms over a potential review.
If teams did decide to put in place a system of exploiting the DRS in this manner it would be difficult to stop. Smith was very obvious in turning around towards the changerooms, but if a cricketer wanted to be sneaky about it, they easily could position their body to peek out of the corner of their eye towards the changerooms.
With their helmet casting their face in shadow it would be incredibly difficult for the on-field umpires to catch such a glance. Then all it would take is for a coach or teammate to execute an unobtrusive gesture – rest their hands behind their head for out or keep them down for not out, or something similarly visible but innocent looking.
Of course, we would hope that cricket teams would not be so cynical and deceitful so as to implement such a shady system. But given some sides have had no problem with blatantly cheating via ball tampering, it would be foolish to rule out similar skulduggery in regards to DRS.
donald
Guest
i agree Smith must be punished for habitually turning to the stands to determine whether he should review a decision but coming from Micheal Clarke,it's a bit rich. Four years ago Clarke was in charge when Watto was sent for not doing his homework. Two Watto's might make lotto more fun but i think this is a good lesson for smith. How you win matters to both Australian and Indian supporters' still. my opinion is "Smith is coming home and there's not much he or Australian cricket can do about it. A six month ban from all forms of the game sounds about fair to me. And maybe another six months suspended if he needs reminding as to the seriousness of what he did." the fact that it didn't happen and they're considering him for the 3rd test is much more of a problem for the game, because it signals that james sutherland is ok with what smith did.
TC123
Guest
Cry baby Australian fans? Just saying Australian fans would have meant the same thing
Basil
Guest
opened the floodgates to what exactly?
Basil
Guest
I think we're getting into the realms of fantasy here, Rob. There simply would not be sufficient time to jump back to the decision, replay it, assess its merits, and then relay any info to the batters on the field. Have you noticed how long it takes the NRL bunker to make a decision, and they have state of the art disposal at the fingers? One bloke with a laptop simply could not do it.
Basil
Guest
how much virtue signalling are we going to have to endure over this? Yes, Smith was in the wrong, the ump saw this and did his duty, hence no review was allowed. END OF STORY.
Jordan c
Guest
He was punished, couldn't review as per the rule book and there was nothing systematic about it. I've been wondering for a while if you even watch the cricket? This article has just put you to the same level as Lord in my eyes Ronan, absolute hyperbole and a death kneel to journalism on this site. You should be ashamed.
Linphoma
Guest
MLB has had on-field reviews available for just two seasons yet I believe all 30 franchises have been pretty slick in implementing in-game strategies to manage their DRS. For a start, it's blatant. As soon as an on-field call is made that could be close, the manager in the dugout is on a phone to the clubhouse. In the clubhouse (and I assume it is for both home or away sides), there are a a number of video analysts with all camera angles available and slow-mo. Within 15 seconds (there is some latitude) the clubhouse will make a call for the manager to challenge or not. To date, I do't believe any challenge has been timed out by the umpires and though the commentators rail against the time taken, I think most fans are happy when the right decision is made.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
A missed opportunity for the ICC to actually take a stand about something without treading on the toes of the real cricketing bosses, the BCCI. Smith clearly crossed the line and whether he benefited from his action is irrelevant, just as his "brain-fade" explanation. Open the floodgates now. Well done by the umpire for acting so swiftly upon seeing Smith breaking the rules. I wonder if he feels like our police officers do when they do their only to watch a magistrate fails to apply an appropriate punishment to the criminal act. This lack of action is very much in keeping with ICC MO. There existing consequences for preparing sub standard test pitches are working a treat, not to mention their crackdown on slow over rates in tests. You and I were silly to even contemplate they would act on this.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Pitch doctoring is what cry baby Australian fans call it when pitches overseas don't look like the ones they play on in Australia - exhibit A qwetzen referring to "normal preparation". If you've grown up in India and only seen low slow dusty tracks your entire playing career until a U20s tour to Australia, the curator watering the square, covering it with hessian to sweat it, leaving the grass long and then rolling it over and over would look like shennanigans. It isn't, it's preparing a wicket for local conditions. Australian wickets always suit the Australians because they grow up playing on similar wickets. Indian wickets always suit Indians because they grow up playing on similar wickets. Pitch doctoring could just be called pitch preparation, but that doesn't sound like cheating and there's nothing Australian sports fans like more than accusing other countries of cheating - usually New Zealand in the rugby, but India or England or South Africa in the cricket will do just as well.
Bee bee
Guest
Curators are usually tanned. They spend a lot of time in the sun.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
"The ego on the man is epitomised by taking a stump in a match where he contributed nothing of value." Now that's a truly bizarre statement! It was a superb test match and a superb comeback win to remember for posterity. Why woudn't the captain take a stump? I guess with that logic Mike Brearley would have no stumps at home.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
Lets take it a notch further. The channels get crossed and they only end up hearing each other :)
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
You also forgot 4. Stand there like a prima donna for what seems like an eternity with hand on hip - teapot style 5. Eventually waddle off the ground at a snails pace and indicate to the crowd why I was not out 6. Sit in dressing room and fume like the whole world is against me and tell everyone within earshot the whole world is against me
E-Meter
Guest
Ha ha I like where you are going. Steve Smith or Virat Kohli rock up to bat or field with a "hearing aid" in.
E-Meter
Guest
Yep I agree. Look up to the dressing shed, find your mum or girlfriend in the crowd. 'What do you think Mummy? Missing leg, should I review?'
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Nah, you want to save batsmen with reviews, not Marshes.
matth
Guest
Remember Cronje with the earpiece connected to the coach. Although I suspect it might have been connected to his betting cronies. That system would be perfect for DRS. It's only a matter of time.
matth
Guest
Um no, that just means the pitch has been prepared offsite and then dropped in. It says nothing of how the pitch is actually watered, rolled, etc
matth
Guest
Including scraping the Pune pitch with wire brushes to scuff up the surface. that's as blatant as it gets.
johnnie
Guest
Yes, they should legalise it because all we should care about is getting the decisions right. How we get there should be a secondary consideration.