Kagiso Rabada verdict shows the Proteas paceman can swing just about anything

Will Knight Columnist

By Will Knight, Will Knight is a Roar Expert

 , , ,

185 Have your say

    Kagiso Rabada was just about unplayable in Port Elizabeth, but he was mesmerising in Cape Town.

    How did the South African speedster – or more accurately his legal team – manage to win what seemed like the unwinnable appeal to clear him to play in the third Test against Australia, starting on Thursday?

    Remember, Rabada said last week he took “responsibility for what happened” and needs to stop “letting the team down”.

    But Rabada is so hot right now he can swing just about anything.

    He deliberately changed his line to get in Steve Smith’s face as he celebrated the Australian captain’s dismissal in Port Elizabeth. That can’t be disputed, no matter which camera angle you wish to entertain.

    He got his angry eyes on and veered towards the Aussie skipper to give him an extra few decibels of send-off on the way past.

    The success of the appeal, which was led by high-profile barrister Dali Mpofu, relied on proving that Rabada didn’t make “inappropriate and deliberate physical contact” with Smith.

    Just about everyone – South African, Australian or otherwise – would agree that it was inappropriate.

    So was it deliberate? Well, change the direction in which you’re running and it’s logical that there’s a decent, if not overwhelming, level of intent.

    He wasn’t getting out of the road of a swooping bird, a plummeting Spider-Cam or an out-of-control drinks cart. He wanted to give it to Smith and his spray was as vigorous as one of his 145km/hr reverse-swinging thunderbolts.

    South Africa’s bowler Kagiso Rabada

    AP Photo/Themba Hadebe

    I don’t mind the quicks letting off some steam when they make a big breakthrough.

    Fast bowling can be a tough art. The pace spearheads invariably rely not just on their skill but also on bravado and swagger. They set the tone for combat. They tear in, often in draining heat and often on docile decks, trying to get everything out of their bodies to lead the way for their countries.

    The heart rate is up, the adrenaline is pumping. They’re like heavyweight boxers, not counting on subtlety and finesse, but power and ferocity.

    So it’s understandable that a quick like Rababa gets revved up after getting the world’s No.1 batsman out at a crucial stage of the second Test.

    But if you’re going to be that aggressor that lives on the edge of cricket’s laws and let it all out when you bag that big wicket – and it goes wrong – you’ve got to face the consequences.

    Rabada let off steam, he intentionally changed direction towards Smith and he made contact. Of course, it wasn’t a hit that would have the Stormers ready to offer him a Super Rugby contract.

    “The key issue is whether Mr Rabada made ‘inappropriate and deliberate physical contact’ with Mr Smith. I am not ‘comfortably satisfied’ that Mr Rabada intended to make contact,” ICC’s code of conduct appeal commissioner Michael Heron said in his statement.

    “I consider the conduct was inappropriate, lacked respect for his fellow player and involved non-deliberate and minor contact. The actions contravened the principle that a dismissed batsman should be left alone.”

    Not “comfortably satisfied”? Amazing. Given all the directions that Rabada could’ve turned towards to celebrate and he chose the path closest to Smith. And then with a nice bit of late swing he caught the edge of Smith.

    Use Hot-Spot. Use Snicko. Use Rabada Follow-Through Tracking technology if you want. I’d stick with the original decision.

    Will Knight
    Will Knight

    An AAP writer for more than a decade, Will Knight does his best to make sense of all things cricket, rugby union and rugby league, all while trying to have a laugh along the way. You can find him on Twitter @WKnightrider.

    Rebuild announcement

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (185)

    • March 21st 2018 @ 6:41am
      Jake said | March 21st 2018 @ 6:41am | ! Report

      This is a country that conspired to poison an opposition entire team because they couldn’t beat them any other way. Despite one of the perpetrators admitting guilt, they still deny it to this day.
      This is land of ball tampering.
      Hansie Cronje is revered and looked up to as a hero.
      What else is o be expected?

      • March 21st 2018 @ 7:18am
        Cec said | March 21st 2018 @ 7:18am | ! Report

        Jake, are we then a country of under arm bowlers or sledgers? It’s a few bad apples right and not the whole country or land.

        Will, is that shoulder rub really worth 3pts with a perspective to other recent incidents presented to match refs in all formats. Let it go it’s done and dusted. Besides would you not rather see our guys take it to KG and beat down the #1 bowler. Not having KG to compete against would be the soft option imho. Let’s focus on the cricket.

      • Roar Guru

        March 21st 2018 @ 7:41am
        Corne Van Vuuren said | March 21st 2018 @ 7:41am | ! Report

        You are making a lot of accusations there Jake, give it a rest.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 8:21am
          ADP said | March 21st 2018 @ 8:21am | ! Report

          Don’t take him seriously, he’s clearly just a troll.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 3:52pm
          Simoc said | March 21st 2018 @ 3:52pm | ! Report

          This comment has been removed for breaching The Roar’s comments policy.

      • March 21st 2018 @ 8:45am
        SJ said | March 21st 2018 @ 8:45am | ! Report

        Get a grip Jake. Utterly pathetic comment.

        • Roar Rookie

          March 21st 2018 @ 9:48am
          Pedro The Fisherman said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:48am | ! Report

          Utterly Pathetic – a bit like this ridiculous verdict.
          What is happening to world cricket when we need QC’s and top silks to overturn what everyone else can see clearly?

          • March 21st 2018 @ 9:54am
            Connolly said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:54am | ! Report

            Mate sports rules decisions are legally reviewable decisions. A sporting rule is a term of contract. And a former Solicitor-General of NZ is eminently qualified to review the decision. Its not park cricket.

      • March 21st 2018 @ 11:56am
        Targa said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:56am | ! Report

        They poisoning in 1995 was due to British bookmakers, not South African rugby

      • March 21st 2018 @ 4:31pm
        Ex force fan said | March 21st 2018 @ 4:31pm | ! Report

        Ag shame

      • March 21st 2018 @ 6:43pm
        Ozinsa said | March 21st 2018 @ 6:43pm | ! Report

        Give it a rest Jake. I don’t agree with the decision and the Proteas have a victim culture but you don’t get to slander the entire race

      • March 22nd 2018 @ 12:26am
        Vic said | March 22nd 2018 @ 12:26am | ! Report

        Jack ole son, relax. You’re gonna bust an artery soon mate. There is good medication available for those suffering from conspiracy theories

    • Roar Guru

      March 21st 2018 @ 7:18am
      JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 7:18am | ! Report

      I agree that this is an odd decision. It basically tells players that they can get right up in an opponent’s face and if they make contact as direct, foreseeable result, they can argue that the contact wasn’t 100% intentional and only face 1 demerit point at worst.

      I wonder if the ICC will revisit the use of ‘deliberate’ and consider replacing it with something like ‘intentional or reckless’. Probably not, given their track record.

      At least now it’s over and we can get back to the cricket!

      • Roar Guru

        March 21st 2018 @ 8:55am
        spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 8:55am | ! Report

        I see where this is going, but this still entirely discounts the possibility (that seems to have been accepted by the appeal panel) that Rabada was in fact changing his direction to meet his teammates.

        No one would replace ‘deliberate’ with ‘intentional’ btw. They are synonyms.

        Careless and reckless might be terms that could be inserted.

        • Roar Guru

          March 21st 2018 @ 9:29am
          JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:29am | ! Report

          Legally speaking, they aren’t. The law recognises different levels of intent. But I meant inserting ‘intentional or reckless’ (or similar) as a phrase, not one or the other.

          Spruce, no rational person could look at that footage and suggest Rabada changed his direction for the primary purpose of celebrating with his teammates. His eyes – and aggro – were firmly locked on Smith. The Commissioner’s statement reflects this:

          “I consider the conduct was inappropriate, lacked respect for his fellow player and involved non-deliberate and minor contact. The actions contravened the principle that a dismissed batsman should be left alone.”

          I can’t see how that statement would align with the argument that Rabada was just trying to celebrate with his teammates. What seems to have been accepted by the Commissioner is that even though Rabada was directing his aggression at Smith, the physical contact itself was unintentional.

          I’m not convinced, but the commissioner has given KG the benefit of the doubt, as is his prerogative. I’m happy to accept this particular judgment and move on – particularly as I’m not privy to all the evidence that was presented – but I do wonder about the precedent it sets.

          • Roar Guru

            March 21st 2018 @ 9:47am
            spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:47am | ! Report

            Yeah, but you’ve ignored what he said prior: “I am not ‘comfortably satisfied’ that Mr Rabada intended to make contact.”

            So, that statement would align quite neatly with the argument that Rabada was moving towards his teammates. Was Rabada trying to kill two birds with one stone (as in, give Smith a grilling, and go to his teammates)? Possibly, if not probably.

            As you have accepted that we aren’t privy to all the evidence presented, I find it peculiar you would brush someone as rational/irrational anyway.

            • Roar Guru

              March 21st 2018 @ 10:46am
              JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:46am | ! Report

              I haven’t ignored anything. Whether or not the contact itself was deliberate is a separate point. He can intend to get in Smith’s face but still make either accidental or deliberate contact (or none at all).

              The issue I have is with people suggesting Smith wasn’t Rabada’s focus. The footage strongly suggests otherwise and the Commissioner’s comments do too.

              The comment about being rational was based on what people are actually looking at (i.e. the footage available online), not the evidence we aren’t privy to.

              • Roar Guru

                March 21st 2018 @ 10:55am
                spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:55am | ! Report

                Again, the footage has split the crowd.

                Are those who disagree with your interpretation irrational? They have arguably been vindicated James.

              • Roar Guru

                March 21st 2018 @ 11:21am
                JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:21am | ! Report

                You’re still conflating the issues. The only vindication is for those people who said they didn’t think the actual contact itself was deliberate.

                There is absolutely nothing said publicly by the Commissioner which vindicates those who claimed Rabada was focused on heading towards his teammates, and not Smith. The footage does not support that position at all.

              • March 21st 2018 @ 1:16pm
                Spruce Goose said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:16pm | ! Report

                The Spruce Goose strikes again

          • March 21st 2018 @ 6:16pm
            Ozinsa said | March 21st 2018 @ 6:16pm | ! Report

            I think this is a very reasonable summary of the decision. And it’s hard to argue against it. I’m not happy about overruling a match referee but this has follows due process.

            One question, if Mitch Marsh scored a demerit Point for a muffled F off under his grill after a send off, why wouldn’t Rabada get one for the Smith send off (on another planet in terms of visibility and aggression) and this get to 8 points and a ban?

            • Roar Rookie

              March 21st 2018 @ 7:26pm
              Matthew Pearce said | March 21st 2018 @ 7:26pm | ! Report

              He wasn’t entirely let off for the Smith send-off, he got a “contrary conduct” charge, which is one demerit. Plus the one demerit for the Warner send-off he didn’t challenge, that’s why he’s now on 7 instead of the 9 he was on before the appeal.

              • March 22nd 2018 @ 12:53am
                Ozinsa said | March 22nd 2018 @ 12:53am | ! Report

                Thanks Matt. Clear now

        • Roar Rookie

          March 21st 2018 @ 9:54am
          Matthew Pearce said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:54am | ! Report

          You’d be completely validated in arguing that the actual contact wasn’t intentional. Attempting to argue that Rabada didn’t intentionally change his line or that he only had eyes for his teammate is lunacy. As much as you protest otherwise, the footage is quite obvious. Like I said though, it’s a completely valid scenario that the contact was entirely accidental.

          Personally, I don’t see how you can state that the send-off was intentional but exclude the physical contact from that, but I digress. Despite what my antics in the previous article may have suggested (personally I’m a little embarrassed, and should have kept my big mouth shut until I’d cooled down), I can accept the decision and move on.

          Agree with JamesH, though. It’ll be interesting to see what future disciplinary charges serve up.

          • Roar Guru

            March 21st 2018 @ 10:29am
            spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:29am | ! Report

            “As much as you protest otherwise, the footage is quite obvious. Like I said though, it’s a completely valid scenario that the contact was entirely accidental.”

            That makes no sense Matt. If it’s quite obvious, then it’s NOT a valid scenario that the contact was entirely accidental.

            While I’m pleased to hear you’ve accepted the decision, I’m surprised you were so riled up by it. By your own admission it was an entirely valid scenario.

            Remember, this was the first time Rabada had an opportunity to address the presentation of ‘facts’. The term ‘appeal’ is thus quite a misnomer. He was never disputing the decision, just the charge. That’s quite important. The charge was initially , and indeed has been proven to be, wrong.

            • Roar Rookie

              March 21st 2018 @ 10:45am
              Matthew Pearce said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:45am | ! Report

              I was referring to the argument from above that Rabada didn’t have eyes for Smith. James’ ABC link below quite clearly shows that Rabada fully intended to give a send-off. I’m happy to admit, though, that it’s completely valid that the contact in and of itself (and nothing else, just the contact) wasn’t intentional. Apologies if I didn’t make that clear enough.

              I can recognise, with a clear head, that it has validity. Doesn’t mean I like the decision any more now; it’s just that before I put my disappointment ahead of the actual facts. Glad we can just discuss that now.

              The last paragraph is certainly valid. I’d have presumed that Rabada’s own statement of “guilt” beforehand may have somewhat invalidated that, though. Would be interesting for curiosity’s sake, if nothing else, to see what the actual detailed thought process was.

              • March 21st 2018 @ 2:40pm
                Connolly said | March 21st 2018 @ 2:40pm | ! Report

                Rabada could be focused on Smith and in his “space” without intending to make physical contact. These are two distinct intentions. Also you don’t understand the standard of proof in the rule. It is comfortably satisfied which is a higher bar than on the balance of probabilities. So even if you believe that Rabada was more likey than not to have intended to brush Smith that doesn’t get you to comfortable satisfaction which is a standard just below beyond reasonable doubt. Under the rule it is Crowes decision that was a travesty.

            • March 21st 2018 @ 12:48pm
              Jacko said | March 21st 2018 @ 12:48pm | ! Report

              Mathew how would you know where Rabada’s eyes are looking as the footage does not show his eyes yet you somehow saw thru the back of his head and saw his eye direction….go and lie down for half an hour and settle petal.
              As for Rabada fully intending to give a send-off…yes he did….like almost every other test bowler does when they get a wicket….When did the rule come out that said only SA bowlers arnt allowed to give a send-off?

              • Roar Guru

                March 21st 2018 @ 11:35pm
                Chris Kettlewell said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:35pm | ! Report

                Jacko, there is footage from lots of different angles. If you look at replays of the indicent, most go beyond just the angle from behind Rabada.

                From the angle behind Rabada you could almost think he was just wandering down the pitch towards his teammates and accidentally bumped Smith. The moment you view it from some other angles that’s clearly not the case. From the other side you can see him clearly focussing his screams at Smith and clearly changing direction to come closer to Smith in his walk to keep screaming more in his face.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 10:32am
          jameswm said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:32am | ! Report

          spruce Rabada initially changed his line to get in Smith’s face.

          • Roar Guru

            March 21st 2018 @ 10:57am
            spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:57am | ! Report


          • March 21st 2018 @ 2:41pm
            Connolly said | March 21st 2018 @ 2:41pm | ! Report

            Which is completely irrelevant to the rule.

    • Roar Guru

      March 21st 2018 @ 7:41am
      Corne Van Vuuren said | March 21st 2018 @ 7:41am | ! Report

      You should appeal the outcome of the appeal Will.

      Maybe you can also swing anything.

      Time for this Aussie tour to end, there has been more complaints than sledges.

      • Roar Rookie

        March 21st 2018 @ 8:10am
        Matthew Pearce said | March 21st 2018 @ 8:10am | ! Report

        I mean, the Saffas have been doing much more of the actual complaining, but sure.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 10:34am
          jameswm said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:34am | ! Report

          Yah. You might want to have a look in the mirror there biltong. One thing about the Aussies – they cross the line every now and then, but they cop the punishment. How many appeals have SA tried and lost so far? How much do they play the victim and refuse to admit they’ve done anything wrong?

          • March 21st 2018 @ 12:51pm
            Jacko said | March 21st 2018 @ 12:51pm | ! Report

            Yes Warner just cop0ped his punishment did he???? He was on National TV on many occasions defending himself for trying to assult a SA cricketer…Its all his fault……that is in no way accepting his punishment

            • March 21st 2018 @ 1:56pm
              Ouch said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:56pm | ! Report

              :”He was on National TV on many occasions defending himself for trying to assult a SA cricketer”

              Didn’t see that.

              What country was he on tv on ‘many occasions? In your own head doesn’t count as a country btw.

              Think you’re making that one up

            • Roar Guru

              March 21st 2018 @ 11:41pm
              Chris Kettlewell said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:41pm | ! Report

              Yeah, I didn’t see that either. No sure what this “trying to assault an SA cricketer” situation is you speak of. Must be something from years ago we haven’t heard of. He certainly hasn’t attempted to assault anyone on this tour. Must be confusing him with Ben Stokes…

              Have to love how Rabada apologists like to try and explain away what he actually did do be comparing it with what their imaginations like to think David Warner might have wanted to do despite no evidence that he was trying to do anything more than get in QDK’s face and have a few words with him about what QDK mumbled behind his back.

          • March 21st 2018 @ 1:13pm
            SJ said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:13pm | ! Report

            Jameswm, are you suggesting SA shouldn’t have appealed? That would have been borderline negligent given the system allows it.

            • Roar Guru

              March 21st 2018 @ 1:39pm
              spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:39pm | ! Report

              I think that’s exactly what he’s suggesting, and therefore tacitly suggesting the negligence of the Australian cricketers for not appealing their demerit points.

              Warner sits on 3 and a suspension looms large when he could easily be sitting on 2 or 1, or even NONE if he appeals.

              I’ll be curious to see whether James expects Warner to cop it on the chin if he gets another demerit point. Me thinks not.

              • March 21st 2018 @ 10:05pm
                Jameswm said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:05pm | ! Report

                Problem there spruce?

                I’m talking facts. Aussies have a history of copping it. SA have a history of appealing, until now with futility.

                I don’t expect anything and I’m not suggesting anything. Not sure what the point is.

              • March 21st 2018 @ 11:19pm
                Nudge said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:19pm | ! Report

                Spruce just likes to be argumentative for the sake of being well, argumentative.
                You’re are spot on Jameswm. I like the fact that Australia go with the umpires decision. Go in and argue your case as hard as you can. If you lose, cop it on the chin, don’t appeal, and move on.
                Spruce thinks, it’s tacitly negligent to not appeal your demerit points. I don’t, it’s called copping your medicine and moving on, me thinks.

      • March 21st 2018 @ 4:07pm
        Chris Love said | March 21st 2018 @ 4:07pm | ! Report

        Biltongbek, don’t be in too much haste for this tour to end mate. If things in your country continue to deteriorate as they have been this could be the last tour on South African soil for a long long time.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 5:11pm
          ADP said | March 21st 2018 @ 5:11pm | ! Report

          Reckon? Well perhaps then a lot of us will be sitting on aussie stands with our fast tracked visas enjoying the cricket.

          • March 21st 2018 @ 5:52pm
            Ouch said | March 21st 2018 @ 5:52pm | ! Report

            No you won’t.
            Turns out the majority of the Australian public are very against giving white south africans a free ride into Australia. Apparently they are not particularly well liked.
            The comments by the conservative readers of the Sydney Morning Herald are surprising. I thought they’d be comfortable with fellow bigots. Turns out they aren’t.


            • March 21st 2018 @ 6:14pm
              ADP said | March 21st 2018 @ 6:14pm | ! Report

              Mate that comment was made in jest. Fellow bigots? Bit rich.

            • March 21st 2018 @ 6:48pm
              Justin said | March 21st 2018 @ 6:48pm | ! Report

              ‘Ouch’ if you think there are conservative readers of the Sydney Morning Herald, then you know nothing of Australia. Perhaps you should have mentioned The Australian instead, but you would find their readers would love SA’s emigrants

            • March 21st 2018 @ 11:37pm
              Superba said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:37pm | ! Report

              Ouch is the Sydney Morning Herald conservative ? Abs BS .It is far to the left and against all conservatives stand for in this country .A once balanced broadsheet has become a trashy leftwing tabloid .
              As for the majority of Australian public not agreeing with the visa proposal , of which majority do you speak ?

            • March 22nd 2018 @ 12:31am
              Vic said | March 22nd 2018 @ 12:31am | ! Report

              Because Australian race relationships are tickety boo, aren’t they. Strangely, my Aboriginal mates don’t agree with you

    • March 21st 2018 @ 7:44am
      Yawn said | March 21st 2018 @ 7:44am | ! Report

      Agree with the article. Unfricking believable that the guilty verdict was overturned. Guilty as sin.

    • March 21st 2018 @ 7:57am
      Christo the Daddyo said | March 21st 2018 @ 7:57am | ! Report

      This is a guy with repeated offenses, made clear contact and also went up to another batsman and screamed in their face after getting his wicket. All the ICC has done with this reversal is to say, ‘hey guys, pretty much anything goes’.

      These wet lettuce leaf ‘punishments’ are a waste of time. If we want to see players get on with playing good spirited, competitive cricket instead of all this childish tantrum throwing that’s going on (and not just the South Africans – so just put that chip on shoulder away biltongbek), the ICC needs to come down hard on this sort of behaviour.

      It’s a terrible message to send – both to the specific players, the wider international cricket teams, but most importantly, to kids playing and learning the game.

      • March 21st 2018 @ 8:35am
        ADP said | March 21st 2018 @ 8:35am | ! Report

        Look, I myself had my doubts as to the merits of the appeal, and was surprised at the outcome. But spare us the moral lectures about how the game should be played please, or do you really think the way the aussies go about it is something to aspire to?

        • March 21st 2018 @ 9:20am
          Christo the Daddyo said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:20am | ! Report

          Maybe you should read my comment before reacting? Might have saved you the embarrassment…

        • Roar Guru

          March 21st 2018 @ 9:31am
          JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:31am | ! Report

          Give CtD his due, he was equally (or even more) critical of Warner after the Durban incident.

          • Roar Guru

            March 21st 2018 @ 9:47am
            spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:47am | ! Report

            Very true.

          • March 21st 2018 @ 4:11pm
            Christo the Daddyo said | March 21st 2018 @ 4:11pm | ! Report

            It’s one of the things that really depresses me – poor sportsmanship/behaviour by international cricketers.
            a) It’s unnecessary
            b) It’s embarrassing (no, it’s not ‘tough’ or ‘patriotic’ – it’s childish)
            c) Whether they like it or not these players are role models for kids. If they see [insert name of player] mouthing off, screaming in someone’s face, etc etc, the kids will take on that behaviour.

            All the people/bodies who should be pulling these players into line (i.e. captains, coaches/national bodies/ICC) seem to do anything from encouraging it (captains/coaches) to ignoring it (national bodies) to feather duster ‘punishments’ (ICC).

            • March 21st 2018 @ 10:57pm
              Dianne Andrews said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:57pm | ! Report

              Agree Christo. I am quickly falling out of love with cricket, but fortunately I am old enough to have seen lots of talented players over the years who played with determination, passion, respect and sportsmanship.
              My concern now is for the coaches of the junior teams. They will have to contend with a bunch of entitled upstarts who think anything goes because rules, respect and manners no longer apply.

          • March 21st 2018 @ 4:50pm
            ADP said | March 21st 2018 @ 4:50pm | ! Report

            I did’nt see that. Apologies Christo.

      • March 21st 2018 @ 9:10am
        I ate pies said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:10am | ! Report

        Spot on.

      • March 21st 2018 @ 3:29pm
        Johnno said | March 21st 2018 @ 3:29pm | ! Report

        christo the daddyo, you cry baby yet you’ll be watching the test no doubt rather than taking a moral stand to match your rant you won’t boycott this test match on your princibles, you’ll be throthing at the first ball Rabada bowls to Steve smith. Your more than happy to give the ICC$ and TV networks$ money. If you really had princible to back up your bite you would boycott the match and not give the ICC$ and tv networks money but no you’ll will be watching a game that Rabada will be playing in that you don’t believe he should be playing in.. Hypocrite then you being..

        • March 21st 2018 @ 4:13pm
          Christo the Daddyo said | March 21st 2018 @ 4:13pm | ! Report

          Um…I object to poor player behaviour and you think I should not watch cricket?!?!?

          That makes about as much sense as your spelling and grammar ability…

          • March 21st 2018 @ 8:08pm
            Johnno said | March 21st 2018 @ 8:08pm | ! Report

            You are looking forward to Rabada playing, you should boycott as your having a moral cry about him playing, you can’t have it both ways that makes no sense..

            • Roar Guru

              March 21st 2018 @ 11:49pm
              Chris Kettlewell said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:49pm | ! Report

              Actually, you can. You can say that you would find it disappointing that he wouldn’t be playing because of suspension but still think the suspension is the right thing, and you can say you find him exciting to watch play, and are sure his presence will add something to the contest, but still be of the belief that overturning the decision was wrong.

      • March 23rd 2018 @ 10:26am
        Connolly said | March 23rd 2018 @ 10:26am | ! Report

        So a former Solicitor General knows nothing about interpreting sporting rules and condones bad behaviour including possibly on-field violence? Big allegation there. Are you Steve Smith’s speech writer. The rule was applied correctly.

    • Roar Guru

      March 21st 2018 @ 8:19am
      Red Kev said | March 21st 2018 @ 8:19am | ! Report

      I hope RSA wins the toss and bowls. And when the commentators ask inevitable questions about ‘why’ and ‘the pitch’ I hope Faf says “I haven’t even looked at the pitch, I looked at Rabada, we’re gonna unleash him.”

      As a spectator, he’s by far the most interesting player in this series to watch.

    , , ,