UPDATE: Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft accept ball-tampering sanctions, Warner yet to respond

Dont worry anon,it seems Smith mite have a few buddies or shoulders to blow snott and tears on here at The roar because some my comments are also gone. I can assure you I used no vulgar language. ;-)

I don't know, one of those wickets from Cummins was a beautiful reverse swinging inswinger. Lovely ball. NOTE: No home player has ever been caught ball tampering, because it's only ever done because host broadcasters search for footage! Unfortunately, everyone is doing it, which is why the ICC treats it basically as a misdemeanor if footage comes out that forces them to act.

It actually makes sense for Warner to challenge it. As mentioned, most people don't have a lot of respect for him anyway, so not much is going to get lost. He can challenge it as the bad guy, and if he wins then effectively CA will need to overturn the Smith and Bancroft penalties also, and they can continue to look more the good guys for accepting without appealing but still get the suspensions lifted / reduced. That it seems like all world cricket does it and it's just one of these unwritten rules to look the other way, but the ICC has their hands tied if a host broadcaster broadcasts footage of it, so they have a slap on the wrist maximum one match ban to hand out, which they did. Unfortunately, Smith aired the dirty laundry that everyone wanted to keep secret, so CA decided they needed to hand out ridiculous sanctions as a result. http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23021555/do-broadcasters-do-ball-tampering

It looks like the moderators have removed my comment, but all I said was that I couldn't imagine Allan Border at a press conference sobbing, needing a tissue to blow his runny nose while his dad stands behind him with a stern "fatherly" look on his face. Times have changed. Totally mystified why they would remove my comment.

Haha. Remember mate: - "It was the first time" - "It was tape" - "The leadership group talked about it at lunch" - "The coach didn't know about it" Innocent people don't hide things.

And anyone who assumes otherwise with nothing but speculation to back it up is just another pitchfork for the mob. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Where is all of the footage from the 30 cameras showing players doing dodgy stuff with the ball? How can we get images of a mint in Faf's mouth, yet the dozens of shots of Warner's hand tape don't show anything but... tape?

Yep. Anyone that thinks its an isolated incident with only three people having awareness is an absolute fool.

Times have changed I guess. I don't even know if it was neutral umpires back then. And I'm not happy with you at all now. I was 19 in 1990 :-).

In my defence 1. I didn't know about that Because 2. I was -10 at the time and 3. Why weren't they caught and punished by the umpires if it was so brazen?

All fair enough points Templar, except for saying NZ players would never do it and would be banned for life. Try this story: "Take one bottle top. Cut into quarters. Apply tape, leaving sharp point exposed. Hide in pocket. Gouge cricket ball when required. It seems brazen, incongruous and bound to draw attention from match officials, but New Zealand's cricketers admitted doing all of the above in full view during a test in Pakistan in 1990. In those days of no match referees they were never sanctioned for ball tampering, despite Chris Pringle generating spectacular reverse swing in an 11-wicket haul which nearly spurred New Zealand to victory in the third test of that series in Faisalabad. Pringle and the late Martin Crowe - captain of that side - both confessed after their respective retirements, insisting Pakistan were doing it too and the local umpires turned a blind eye to both teams' actions." According to Crowe, It was apparently in response to Pakistan doing it first. "Crowe said he complained to the umpires but it fell on deaf ears, so at training for the next test the New Zealanders experimented. Pringle, in his autobiography Save The Last Ball For Me, said the bottle top technique got instant results in the nets. "Even guys like Mark Greatbatch and Martin Crowe were swinging the ball miles in the air," he wrote. Crowe won the toss, sent Pakistan in and they were 35-0. Then, Pringle wrote, he produced the sharp bottle top at drinks and got to work on one side. Results were spectacular and he hooped the ball about, snaring 7-52 as Pakistan were skittled for 102. It remains in the top-five New Zealand test bowling figures. "Neither umpire showed any concern or took any notice in what we were doing even though, at the end of the innings, the ball was very scratched," Pringle wrote. "One side was shiny but there were lots of grooves and lines and deep gouges on the other side. It was so obvious. It was ripped to shreds."

Maybe so, but now he has a year away from the game. It may be the making of him as a man and leader. He certainly did not cry to get a lesser sentence, or at least, if he did, it didn't work.

I'm trying to imagine Allan Border in a press conference all red eyed, tears streaming down his face, nose all snotty, and dad standing over him with a very stern, very serious look on his face. I know he's got a little boys face, but he's nearly 29 for crying out loud.

From a Kiwi point of view this scandal has all been very interesting. In NZ our opinion of the Aus cricket team wasn't great before the scandal. There was respect (and some jealousy) for the skill of the Australian team, however we HATED the sledging (especially from Warner), however we (sort of) accepted your argument that it 'never crossed the line'. After the first test when Warner had his hallway jersey pulling (I think my old man would describe it as handbags at ten paces) the conclusion was mostly Warner can dish out (sledging) but not take it. After that we sort of tune out (it was our turn to play England and the ODIs went to the fifth game, then we bowled them out for 58 in the first test). When #sandpapargate dropped it took a couple of days for our media to digest it (the story was rather unclear at the start). The conclusion reached was not a good one for CA (if they care what the NZ public thinks), basically the opinion over here is "ah ha you hypocrites we knew you crossed that mythical line you claimed to hold dear". In effect everyone's worst suspicions about the Australian cricket team were confirmed. I will admit that there was some amount of satisfaction over here to. The stock of the Australian cricket in NZ hasn't been lower since the underarm bowl. On the individual players Bancroft will almost certainly be forgotten about (he hasn't got piles of runs against us and hasn't been sledging his whole career) provided he serves his 9 months quietly. If you had asked me about Smith three weeks ago I would have said that he was 'annoyingly good' he got a lot of runs against NZ and you disliked and grudgingly respected him for that, after his press conference in SA it was thought here that he was the instigator (we didn't know at the time that leadership group=David Warner), however as more details came out the heat on him lessened. His crying at the press conference earned him some sympathy here, and by not trying to appeal he has earned a wee bit of my respect back, ultimately I think he will be forgiven (be he will need to be whiter than white from now on). And now we move on to the chief idiot, one David Warner, he was already the Australian cricketer we hated most before this tour and his stock has not improved since (in fact it's done something similar to what ENRON's stock did), the whole fact of trying to tamper with the ball was bad enough, but trying to get the youngest member of the team to do it for you is even worse, then he failed to front up immediately (letting Smith do it for him) and by the time we got to his crying press conference he got no sympathy (in fact a couple of journalists bashed him for copying Smith). I wouldn't advise him to come here with a side as (at least in the cricket world) he is public enemy No. 1 (and we won't forget it, we still boo Quade Cooper every time he touches the ball and he didn't even do anything wrong). I hope he preserves the last little bit of dignity he has left and takes his ban like a man (and doesn't try to appeal it or run of to play overseas). On CA's handling the mood over here is generally positive. The bans are generally thought to be fair (if perhaps a little low) and no one here is calling for the sack of the chairman, if however they decrease the bans they will get hammered (because again CA definitely cares what the NZ media says about it) On what would I say if it was NZ players involved (well first I would say it would never happen, but I'm sure that's what a lot of you would have said three weeks ago). I would want them banned for life, they would never play cricket for NZ again, and if NZC was not willing to do that then the government should step in and do it for them (and yes I do know it is much easier to say that now than when it is your team actually affected) Some general thoughts: -it seamed to me that quite a lot of the coverage (right after) the event seamed to either be 'you idiots why did you do it when you were obviously going to get caught' and 'well other teams do it as well so it's ok/less bad' -arguments that their bans should be cut because they might miss the Ashes are flawed as it seams like you are arguing for a reduced ban because it might hurt Australia's chances in the ashes' -in various stages of processing the event I thought "it had to be the week NZ bowls out England for 58 didn't it", I also thought that is "was the best week for NZ cricket in a long time" as we were crushing England and our greatest rival was humiliated (I later realised that scandals like this probably weren't good for the game itself) So there's my two (NZ) cents, feal free to break out the pitchforks/torches

'Why is it smart to serve a ban for something you will never play for again?' Why is it smart that he got himself in the situation in the first place?

Spotted by a dressing room attendant at PE...reported to saffas but no evidence, hence the focus on him from there on and reportedly why Bancroft was enlisted. Is it so hard to believe in light of what we now know

Great comment by anon. Smith does come across as a cry baby boy or over grown small boy if that makes sence,absolutely not leadership attributes. I dont have any issues with either of the three playing again but geez I wouldnt want my old man ''father'' that close to me on an embarassing moment like that,maybe bring a girlfriend or friend,I'd want to protect them from the bad publicity. I guess we all grow up in different ways harder or softer but soft often doesnt bring about leadership skills. Imagine Faf,Ponting or even S Waugh bringing their father along to address the media about issues relating to cricket :|

Easy - banter is still permitted, and only becomes sledging when it "crosses the line". :)

For me, it’s the most devastating moment of the whole scandal. The penalties were obviously reactionary and too harsh. Smith neither devised the plan nor carried it out yet us as fans are deprived of the best batsmen since Bradman for a year. Awful

They’ll let him play in the Bangladesh PL if it gets him well away from them

“Warner” and “thinking” do not sit easily as bedfellows.