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

Will Knight Columnist

By Will Knight, Will Knight is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , , ,

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.

    Getting hassled by a parent or partner about spending too much time playing video games? Now, you can tell them the story of how some ordinary gamers scored $225k for just seven weeks of work.

    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 @ 9:15am
      Perry Bridge said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:15am | ! Report

      “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.”

      Well – actually it CAN be disputed.

      The video footage shows that after the decision was given that Rabada was tracking down the cut portion of the pitch towards his mates running at him from behind the wicket and gully. He was celebrating towards them.

      Smith was traipsing in the opposite direction towards his partner – to check on whether to review – and he was off the cut portion. Neither was tracking directly towards the other. There was no ‘spray’ directed at Smith.

      The change of direction was to meet the fielder rushing in from gully who was first to Rabada and had called to him just prior – you can see that on the video footage.

      Rabada changes direction and seemingly realises Smith is not out of the area – there’s an attempt to arch the back/shoulder but he brushes by him – it is far from ‘deliberate’ and looks far more clumsy/accidental.

      So – I’m sorry but I totally disagree with this article and am satisfied that:
      A. justice has been done
      B. we get to see the 3rd test that we deserve to see.

      Win-win.

      And – a NZ match referee and an NZ ICC reviewer – people have to get away from making accusations about RSA as a country or people – that is churlish and says more about the people making these comments.

      • Roar Guru

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

        Add into the fact that Mr Knight does not have the option to avail himself of every camera angle. He’s drawing his opinion off two angles (admittedly, one looks damning).

        Just wait for the “NZ deliberately going against Australia” conspiracy theorists to start waking up too.

      • Roar Guru

        March 21st 2018 @ 10:03am
        JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:03am | ! Report

        “The video footage shows that after the decision was given that Rabada was tracking down the cut portion of the pitch towards his mates running at him from behind the wicket and gully. He was celebrating towards them.

        …Neither was tracking directly towards the other. There was no ‘spray’ directed at Smith.

        The change of direction was to meet the fielder rushing in from gully who was first to Rabada and had called to him just prior – you can see that on the video footage.

        Rabada changes direction and seemingly realises Smith is not out of the area – there’s an attempt to arch the back/shoulder but he brushes by him – it is far from ‘deliberate’ and looks far more clumsy/accidental.”

        Literally none of that is correct. Have a look at this footage (particularly at around the 15s mark and then over the last ~5s of the video):

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/rabada-suspended-steve-smith-bump/9542108

        Show me someone who can view that and still say they’re confident Rabada’s attention wasn’t on Smith, and I’ll show you a fibber.

        ‘No spray directed at Smith’, what nonsense.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 10:42am
          jameswm said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:42am | ! Report

          15-16 second mark and right at the end. Hadn’t seen that footage like that. Makes it harder to believe he won the appeal.

          He was staring right at Smith a fraction of a second beforehand. Still might not have meant to touch him, but meant to get as close as possible.

          • Roar Guru

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

            Yep, and this is where my concern about the word ‘deliberate’ comes in. It opens up the argument ‘yes I meant to get right in his face but no I didn’t mean to actually touch him’.

            To which my response is ‘well don’t put yourself in such a dumb position in the first place’.

            • March 21st 2018 @ 1:24pm
              Spruce Goose said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:24pm | ! Report

              Nailed it in one right there.

              • Roar Guru

                March 21st 2018 @ 1:40pm
                spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:40pm | ! Report

                Imitation is the best form of flattery eh?

            • March 21st 2018 @ 1:27pm
              soapit said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:27pm | ! Report

              totally. can live with this appeal, not a hill of beans in the end and no lawyer at all but would really like an adjustment somehow to make the onus be on the player making a change in direction to avoid contact. especially when play isnt live. onus on them to have their brains engaged about whats around them. make it a small punishment but take the mind reading out of it.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 11:09am
          Perry Bridge said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:09am | ! Report

          Mate – at the 15/16 second mark is when you can see that his movement of his head towards his team mates is as he turns his body perhaps trying to clear Smith with his left shoulder.

          If he’d turned his body the other way – leading with the left shoulder then yes – deliberate ‘shoulder’ bump but by turning the other way, leading with his right shoulder it makes it looks as though he was at the last moment trying to avoid contact.

          What looks worse is the image at 27 seconds (right at the end) – but, that footage stops too soon and we know from the other angles that Rabada is at that time mostly facing his team mates to whom he is moving.

          You really need to play all 3 angles simultaneously and to conclusion to get the angles right, the positions right and the context right.

          And I’ll agree he was clumsy but I’m comfortably satisfied it was not deliberate.

          • Roar Guru

            March 21st 2018 @ 11:38am
            JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:38am | ! Report

            No issue with your view on whether or not it was deliberate contact, that’s a reasonable point of debate.

            However, there is no movement of the head towards his teammates (prior to contact). There is no ‘turning the other way’ or ‘leading with his right shoulder’. There is absolutely zero movement to indicate an intention to avoid contact. These things just don’t exist in that footage.

            Rabada blatantly turns his face and bodytowards Smith. I mean, I am sitting here looking at him doing it right now. What you make of a fact is opinion, but what is right there in front of you is a fact. It is not possible to watch someone do something and then reasonably claim the contrary.

            I concede that ‘not trying to avoid contact’ is not the same as ‘deliberately making contact’ – far from it. That’s why I have no issue with your final sentence and I can live with the specific ruling, despite my concern for what this provision apparently now allows players to do.

            • March 21st 2018 @ 12:57pm
              Perry Bridge said | March 21st 2018 @ 12:57pm | ! Report

              #JamesH

              Apologies for this – a little drawn out but in one case there are 3 angles (the ABC link – but – they are missing the most important aspect and angles as seen via this youtube link – please do watch it).

              If we start at 0:05 – Rabada is flexing and pumping and Smith is looking towards Marsh with the facial expression of one questioning whether there’s any hope for a review.

              0:05-6, no contact yet – Rabada is walking along the edge of the cut portion and Smith is off the cut pitch – clearly on different paths and no ‘in your face’ and Smith just looking ahead.

              0:06-7, Contact about to happen – as Rabada is about to brush around behind Smith as his head moves forward with what is regarded from some angles as the ‘spray’ directed at Smith – however – at this point he’s coming around beside and behind Smith.

              0:16 Smith is looking towards Rabada and they are very close
              0:17 Contact about to occur – left shoulders of shirts look about to brush, Rabada is angling at this point to get around Smith to get to his team mates – the shout at this point is aimed at his team mates – but yes, he’s physically bigger than Smith and is an opposition ‘beast’ that Smith isn’t used to coming up against (the big guys, Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood are always on his side – Aust and NSW).
              0:17-18 the contact occurs whereby Rabada is coming around behind Smith and moving towards his teammates – at this point his head somewhat lowered and thrust forward in a perhaps menacing motion but it’s not directed at Smith.
              0:25 and 0:27 Rabada is eyes down the pitch – towards his keeper? Delight at the finger being raised by the ump. No issue to this point – he’s allowed that moment of delight.
              0:27-28 He makes a big yell of some sort – but it’s straight down the pitch – not a Smith – stop the image at 0:28 and you see the direction the Smith is taking – they are NOT face to face.
              0:28-29 as Smith moves to screen right we now see that Rabada is turning to his left (towards Smith??)
              0:29 and the pause of the image at 0:29 would be devastating other than that we know at this point from 0:17-18 that Rabada is coming around behind Smith.

              The key vision missing is via this footage:

              At 0:33 you can see where the 2 players are – Smith on the green uncut and Rabada on the edge of the pitch.
              At 0:35 you can see that Rabada’s left foot angles slightly to the left and he’s straddling the edge of the pitch/uncut grass (but he is obliged to not strut straight down the pitch anyway).
              At 0:38 as he stands tall chest puffed out – right foot now hitting the edge of the pitch – and the angle overstates it but from other angles we know at this point that left shoulder is approaching left shoulder – Rabada though is aiming towards the gully fielder who is nearest to him within his vision.
              At 0:39 – left foot in the air and this is where these guys pause and zoom in – Smith looking towards Rabada.
              At 0:45 Rabada planting his left foot as shoulders brushing – contact occuring now but Rabada is bodily around the back of Smith and facing the gully fielder who is coming directly towards him.
              At 0:46 the contact is done and dusted and this is where Rabada makes that head down and thrusted forward action (seen of 0:28-29 of the ABC footage). It’s NOT a send off to Smith – because he’s behind him.
              At 0:52 Rabada is reaching his nearest team mate to celebrate and do a high 5/10.

              As far as I’m concerned his only intention is to get to his nearest team mate to celebrate.

              The contact was accidental and so little did he think of it that he barely noticed (totally caught up in the moment).

              • March 22nd 2018 @ 10:47am
                Roger said | March 22nd 2018 @ 10:47am | ! Report

                P.S. That’s a good video Perry, ta

            • March 21st 2018 @ 2:35pm
              Roger said | March 21st 2018 @ 2:35pm | ! Report

              It’s called confirmation bias and will have us absolutely convinced that our view is insanely obvious. You see what you already believe to be true JamesH and others see what they already believe to be true.

              Constantly rehashing the same arguments, on both sides, and expecting anything to change is bordering on insane.

              I’d suggest that the people charged with hearing the appeal are “slightly” better placed to assess the incident than any one of us arguing our respective position.

              • March 21st 2018 @ 2:44pm
                Perry Bridge said | March 21st 2018 @ 2:44pm | ! Report

                Agreed.

                All I can really add as my last word is that I didn’t see it live – and having seen 4 different camera angles it looks very different from one to another – let alone any single frame photo.

                When I first saw it – I expected much worse and in part assumed the footage I saw was not the full story – that it was made me feel he deserved to ‘get off’. Perhaps I’m soft. And I don’t gamble on cricket.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 12:42pm
          Yawn said | March 21st 2018 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

          Telling footage. There are a couple of other points that have to be raised. Firstly, intention cannot be proven, it can only be inferred by a series of facts and secondly, the liability of ‘probable consequence’.

          If nothing else, Rabada, by his own actions has intended to give Smith a serve and got as close as he could to do so and the contact has resulted as a probable consequence oh his actions.

          He’s got off with it.

          Now, back to the cricket.

    • March 21st 2018 @ 9:23am
      Paul said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:23am | ! Report

      I actually think Heron got this right. Rabada’s been found guilty of giving Smith a completely inappropriate send off and penalised accordingly. The contact at worst was incidental; certainly Smith didn’t seem too concerned about it at the time, nor has he made anything of it since.

      It’s done and dusted, lets move on

    • March 21st 2018 @ 9:23am
      Johnny Boy said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:23am | ! Report

      The predictable moaning is getting annoying now.

      Lyon dropped a ball which rolled onto AB, he received one demerit point. Rabada brushed Smith’s shoulder and the intent is debatable. To me it looks accidental but some view it differently. Regardless, if we are being consistent then the decision to reduce Rabada’s demerit points to one from three is fair in light of what happened to Lyon and also what happened in the Sri Lanka v Bangladesh game.

      • March 21st 2018 @ 9:51am
        Connolly said | March 21st 2018 @ 9:51am | ! Report

        Basically you have to decide whether an eminent QC who is a former Solicitor-General of NZ got it right or a former cricketer who ran a holiday business. Personally I’ll stick with the QC. The most absurd reaction is from the Australian journalist who said the appeal decision makes a mockery of the process. Well no an appeal decision is part of the process and in every jurisdiction in law its the most important part. Its like condemning the High Court for over turning a decision of a Local Court.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 10:31am
          jameswm said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:31am | ! Report

          Was it deliberate? I’d say 50/50. And that means it’s not proven.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 2:07pm
          Ouch said | March 21st 2018 @ 2:07pm | ! Report

          You continually insist on diminishing Jeff Crowe, a former NZ captain, referring to him as a ‘holiday business owner’. What a disrespectful dich you are.
          A QC may have better skills at twisting words to suit his argument but he knows nothing about cricket. Would take the opinion of someone who has played the game at the highest level rather than the opinion of a someone who has never set foot on a cricket field.

          • March 21st 2018 @ 2:51pm
            Connolly said | March 21st 2018 @ 2:51pm | ! Report

            When it comes to interpreting and applying sports rules I will take a former Solicitor General of New Zealand over a former cricket captain. Sports rules are legally enforceable contracts. What’s next Shane Warne for the High Court?

            • March 21st 2018 @ 5:54pm
              Jake said | March 21st 2018 @ 5:54pm | ! Report

              “Sports rules are legally enforceable contracts”

              gee, you’re quite a few cans short aren’t you?

    • March 21st 2018 @ 10:22am
      BrainsTrust said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:22am | ! Report

      The one thing that can turn someone from normality to a raving one eyed lunatic is having a bet on a game.
      Thankfully I don’t gamble, when people have money on the game they go completely berserk and irrational on every single decision, though I actually predicted the loss of Pakistan to Bangladesh in the 1999 world cup and could have made heaps of money off that though there were no betting websites at that time to set up a bet or I might have been tempted.

    • March 21st 2018 @ 10:30am
      jameswm said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:30am | ! Report

      Can someone clarify this for me.

      Rabada was on 5 demerit points. 8 points gives you a 2-test ban. He was originally given 3 for the Smith send off and 1 for the Warner one. This has now been downgraded to 1 each, taking him to 7 demerit points. 1 more and he cops a 2-test ban.

      OK – but what I don’t get is how many points you need for a 1-test ban. Does it go from no ban straight to 2 tests? Surely you’d do a 1-test ban first?

      • Roar Guru

        March 21st 2018 @ 10:36am
        spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:36am | ! Report

        James,

        4 points is a one test ban. You don’t lose the points after the ban. They continue to accrue which means you are then punished for the same infringement twice! (Which is an utterly ludicrous proposal in a supposedly democratic organisation like the ICC).

        Rabada was suspended against England when he hit four points. He stayed on four points after his ban had ended.

        As an example, Warner is currently on 3. If he picks up a demerit point, he will be on 4 points and will be suspended one test. After his suspension he will still be on 4 points.

        It’s a ridiculous system.

        They should have a carry over points system instead, and then a 25% loading for repeat offences.

        • March 21st 2018 @ 10:43am
          jameswm said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:43am | ! Report

          Excellent – thank you spruce for explaining that. He’s done the 1-test ban.

          • Roar Rookie

            March 21st 2018 @ 10:54am
            Matthew Pearce said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:54am | ! Report

            Other murky ground is that the code of conduct mandates for the second of two identical charges within twelve months to be bumped up to the next level – but only if they’re both in the same format.

            Fair or no?

            • Roar Guru

              March 21st 2018 @ 10:59am
              spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:59am | ! Report

              Unfair.

              It’s an absurdly unfair system designed by someone who surely spent time in Turkmenistan.

              • Roar Rookie

                March 21st 2018 @ 11:06am
                Matthew Pearce said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:06am | ! Report

                Heh – pointed 😛

                Question about your above alternative, though – how would the carry-over points work in hypothetical system? Also, is the 25% loading for the situation that they currently bump up, or something else?

              • Roar Guru

                March 21st 2018 @ 11:18am
                spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:18am | ! Report

                how would the carry-over points work in hypothetical system?

                Ok, let’s use David Warner as an example because he’s on 3 points right now. Say he gets a 2 demerit point this test. He goes to 5 and has to miss a test. I my suggestion is that he misses the test, has 4 points deducted from his balance, and then carries over one point (which is largely similar to the NRL and AFL system of carry over points), and is on one point when he comes back.

                Also, is the 25% loading for the situation that they currently bump up, or something else?

                So, again, to use Warner as an example. Warner got a 3 point charge for his reaction to deKock. If he was to transgress in a similar fashion in the next 24 months, he should get 3 points plus a 25% loading on that charge for repeat offending, which would make it 3.75 points in total.

                Basically, I think that you should get suspended every four points, instead of this ridiculous idea that you can be suspended multiple times for one incident.

                I also think that the demerit points system should be split into a test, ODI and T20 account. It’s equally ridiculous to suspend someone from a test if they transgressed in an ODI. Not everyone plays all forms of the game. It’s unfair that a David Warner would have more ‘opportunities’ for suspension than Alastair Cook.

              • Roar Rookie

                March 21st 2018 @ 11:40am
                Matthew Pearce said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:40am | ! Report

                You know what, I could pay that, Spruce. Good to see you have devised a logical alternative.

                Ultimately, though, I’m not sure how much I agree on the current model’s unfairness. Your arguments definitely have validity, but I think the current system needs to combine them. Otherwise we could have someone committing 9 offences, but not getting suspended because they’re evenly spread between the three formats.

                One point I would make is that I personally feel that the demerits are too low in value for loading charges to be effective, especially given that these offences are fairly easy to avoid. Wet umbrella in one hand and phone in other is not especially conducive to proper discussion, though, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree here.

              • March 21st 2018 @ 1:04pm
                Jacko said | March 21st 2018 @ 1:04pm | ! Report

                So how do you get back to 0 points on the current system?

              • March 21st 2018 @ 4:10pm
                John Erichsen said | March 21st 2018 @ 4:10pm | ! Report

                Be on best beat behaviour for 2 years until all existing demerit points have dropped off.

        • Roar Guru

          March 21st 2018 @ 11:04am
          JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:04am | ! Report

          I’m genuinely curious as to why you think it’s ludicrous?

          It’s virtually the same as saying that you go back to zero points but your next ban (at 4 points again) is longer because of your poor record. Taking a poor record into account is a pretty common element in any form of justice/penalty system.

          It is supposed to be a deterrent against repeat offences. If your behaviour is bad enough over 24 months that you accrue 8 demerit points then frankly you deserve a two test ban (particularly given how reluctant the ICC is to actually impose demerit points) because you clearly aren’t getting the message.

          • Roar Guru

            March 21st 2018 @ 11:25am
            spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:25am | ! Report

            Taking a poor record into account is a pretty common element in any form of justice/penalty system.

            There’s a difference between taking a poor record into account, and double jeopardy. Don’t get me wrong, you can load a punishment to take into account a poor record, but under the ICC system, you are re-punishing because you are using points already accrued and used in an initial suspension to be used AGAIN for another suspension.

            Other sports wipe the slate and just have carry over points instead, which more than satisfies a repeat offender punishment. It’s why an NRL or AFL player can suddenly find themselves suspended for a seemingly innocuous incident because they happened to be on 80-85 points and then a modest 50 point charge tipped them over the 100 point mark. It’s much fairer and doesn’t punish someone twice, but still ensures a poor record is taken into account.

            • Roar Guru

              March 21st 2018 @ 11:47am
              JamesH said | March 21st 2018 @ 11:47am | ! Report

              “Other sports wipe the slate and just have carry over points instead”.

              But the net effect is exactly the same. As I said above, it’s as if he goes back to zero points but has a loading applied to the next suspension. The difference is purely technical.

              It isn’t double jeopardy because he isn’t being penalised twice for the same offence. He still needs to commit a subsequent offence for his record to come into play, and it is the subsequent offence that triggers the punishment.

              It’s just two different ways of achieving the same result.

              • Roar Guru

                March 21st 2018 @ 12:01pm
                spruce moose said | March 21st 2018 @ 12:01pm | ! Report

                No it’s not. He’s already served a one match suspension for his prior offences.

                Under the ICC system he’ll be required to re-serve a one match suspension for those offences, plus another match because he’s accrued four more points (therefore another week).

                It’s absolutely double jeopardy. Textbook case.

              • Roar Rookie

                March 21st 2018 @ 6:13pm
                Pedro The Fisherman said | March 21st 2018 @ 6:13pm | ! Report

                Penalties usually increase for repeat offenders.
                Nothing wrong with the current system – just the interpretation that sees offences inconsistently judged and sometimes cases played out in the public arena.

              • Roar Guru

                March 22nd 2018 @ 8:29am
                Chris Kettlewell said | March 22nd 2018 @ 8:29am | ! Report

                In just about all systems, be them legal or sports related, there is an attempt to give harsher penalties for repeat offenders. So two people could commit the same offense, but the person who does it for the first time gets a lesser penalty than the person who’s committed the offense multiple times. That’s just standard and normal.

                Go to any court of law and for all sorts of offenses someone who’s got a completely clean record prior to this offense will get a reasonably light offense, while someone who’s a repeat offender gets harsher penalties each time they come up.

                I don’t see how this could remotely be seen as an issue.

                What you are suggesting is that even if someone committed one of these 1 point offenses every match they played in, then after four matches they’d get suspended one match, then play four more then suspended one more match then play four more then suspended one more match, and no matter how much they just constantly keep doing it, they never get more than a one match ban.

                While most people would say that it’s reasonable that to stamp out this sort of thing, that people constantly re-offending will get more severe penalties. If a one match ban wasn’t enough of a wake up call, maybe a 2 match ban will be, and if that isn’t, then maybe 3 or 4 next time will start to get to them.

    • March 21st 2018 @ 10:35am
      Onside said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:35am | ! Report

      Multi millionaire cricketers, employed by a multi billion dollar industry , squabbling about who owns the moral high ground.

      • Roar Guru

        March 21st 2018 @ 10:57pm
        Corne Van Vuuren said | March 21st 2018 @ 10:57pm | ! Report

        That just about sums it up, yeah.

        All a bit hilarious actually.

    Explore:
    , , ,