The ICC is still pondering ball-tampering suspensions

What? Both the use of lolly induced saliva and lolly itself and sandpaper are intended to alter the ball's performance. The lolly shines one side to help it swing. The sandpaper roughens one side to help it swing. See the similarity?

True, Pedro. I think a great portion of the disrepute to the national team was brought on by the ridiculous over-reaction. A ball tampering episode in a bilateral cricket series would have hardly mattered to anybody. Instead, we turned it into the national embarrassment that featured on newsprint around the world. As Pat Cummins said, there is precedent for this with other teams...none of them were turned into villians

Yep. A ridiculous situation with the flames of Hades fanned by the mainstream media and the faux outrage that the keyboard warriors spread on social media platforms!

I am not too sure that David Richardson would be overly familiar with Australia's labour (and contract) laws (nor any other country's for that matter) but I so agree that there may be cause for action to be taken by all 3 (an not just Warner).

The whole furor around the ball-tampering really was fascinating. It was every flaw and failing of Australian society was pulled together into one pantomime for us all to examine. On the peanut gallery went. Someone must do something, bloodlust and harsher punishments, someone think of the children in junior sports, it's un-Australian, blah, blah, on and on it went. What an utter debacle of an episode.

Civil recourse perhaps...perhaps. But in terms of getting a suspension reduced (as David implies) - they have ZERO chance. Contract law applies.

Spot on.It was only a question of time before certain scribes attempt to "water down"these players actions.Have no doubt by the time there suspensions are up some will even consider them martyrs.

You cannot compare using a lolly to assist in the allowed practice of applying saliva and sweat to polish a ball to using sandpaper to rough the other side up. There isn't any other way of roughing a ball up except by out and out cheating. That is the scandal, David...

I am no lawyer but I am not too sure that your contract law will apply to the ACB contracts. Indeed, a lot of sports based contracts may be viewed as being a restraint of trade. The Cape Town 3 may have recourse to civil proceedings (not expired) against the ACB regarding the excessive nature and impact of the penalties applied under the guise of the ACB contract.They will have the ICC rulings on this and past instances as an indication of the excess and severe penalties applied. Without a doubt this situation will be (and is) quite complex!

As you rightly pointed out , David Richardson is a lawyer . He will therefore also understand labour law and the risks of over severe punishments which may very well open the door for legal action by a professional cricketer . For example in the Smith , Warner , Bancroft incident only Bancroft actually tampered with the ball . Smith and Warner have suffered severe financial loss , particular with the cancellation of their IPL contracts . I think that neither Smith or Bancroft will seek legal redress but Warner may have little to lose . Richardson has to tread very carefully.

You really can't understand the term irony can you Rupesh!

It's a tough one for the ICC, because to a large extent ball tampering penalties have largely come down to players getting picked up on camera at a time when camera's aren't usually paying too much attention, thus, no matter what they might think of ball tampering they've treated it reasonably lightly because they know that it's happening lots and only tiny percentages of offences get caught, and they are always by visiting teams because the home broadcaster decided to go looking for it. So having big penalties for that seems tough to enforce well.

Yep.

Could not agree more the penalties that each player received were quite appropiate 9-12 month ban in retrospect should these players be allowed to play first class & shield games before the ban is lifted? Everyone no doubt will have their own opinions and i generally have to agree with DLKN similar to the AFL code once you are out for that certain amount of time that's it you do your time there is no excuse

If the maximum suspension is three, or four months, the Aussie trio will have every right to have their suspensions reduced to that number. Um, no they won't. Basic contract law - the Australian players were punished by CA according to the rules and procedures of CA as they held CA contracts. And, under the CA guidelines (again, which the players are contractually bound to), the time for appeals have come and gone. Laws generally trump fiction David.

Traitor seems very strong - what have they betrayed? If every mistake committed in a sports-field made the players traitors, very shortly we would have no players left. Also, nobody is apologizing for them - they did wrong and they must be punished. They themselves have said as much. What David is contesting is the severity of the bans considering both prior precedent as well as reframed ICC rules which are likely to be released shortly. The argument is that CA's penalties must be revised to bring them in line with what will be applicable to other teams and other players around the world. As for the fact that the bans must stand because they accepted the sanctions, the odds were weighed heavily against them when they accepted the sanctions. If cooler heads later determine that their offence was not as bad as was made out, surely they deserve the benefit of such an observation? CA doled out justice Wild West style - coming up with a new definition of "bringing disrepute to the game" to include ball tampering, applying this definition retroactively and imposing unprecedented bans (They did quite well out of it - public blood-thirst was satisfied, they secured a record new television rights deal, all administrators gave themselves a clean chit and status quo was happily restored ) The ICC's response was much more in keeping with the practice of law in civilized countries - they applied the rules as they existed at the time and are revising the rules to prevent such instances in future. The argument that CA's mob-justice must be reversed to apply new rules as they will be framed has much merit.

I can see few scenarios panning out: 1. ICC comes up with new rules for ball tampering, CA decides to implement the new rules retrospectively and thus reduces the Cape Town trio's sentence to those recommended under the ICC's new rules. Likelihood: 4/10 2. CA's external agency completes its review, determines the board too was at fault, recommends a code of conduct and penalties for violation of the code. Penalties recommended are lower than those imposed by CA, CA decides to accept recommendations and reduces penalties. Likelihood: 1/10 3. Australia gets beaten at home by India. ACA, ex players, commentators demand in chorus that Cape Town trio must be rehabilitated to promote chances in World Cup. Trio are allowed to play Shield/BBL/domestic cricket. Likelihood 6/10 4. CA keeps bans in place as they are but works behind the scenes with cricket boards in other countries (read New Zealand or South Africa) to allow the trio to play in their domestic tournaments ensuring match practice before the World Cup. Alternatively, CA may also work with other boards throughout the year to ensure trio participation in other white ball tournaments such as the T20 leagues. Likelihood 8/10 It also needs to be considered whether the Cape Town trio actually want their bans reduced. Any reduction in penalties are going to come with the corresponding negative publicity about how the players are getting away with cheating despite the fact that they would most likely have served the majority of their sentences anyway. Even if the bans are in fact reduced, I do not see them being reduced for more than 2-3 months. In the cases of Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft in particular, they have many years of cricket ahead of them. In the bigger scheme of things, they would need to assess if it makes sense for them to abandon their "redemption stories" for a mere 2-3 months of cricket?

I agree with your basic premise, David. Basically the ICC is indulging in exactly the type of meticulous exercise CA should have done - determining the "fair" punishment for ball tampering by rigorous discussion. The media outcry made it impossible for CA to take a dispassionate view of the affair at the time. Considering that this review of the rules was initiated by the Australian ball tampering incident, I feel certain that they will frame rules and punishments to cover precisely the type of situation encountered in Cape Town. I also feel certain that while the suggested punishments will be much harsher than those imposed currently under ICC rules, they will likely be much lighter than those imposed by CA. If that indeed does become the case, is there not a case to be made that the new rules framed after considered discussion which will be applied to all world teams should be the standards applied to the Australian players as well? Why exactly should Australian players be held to a different standard from the rest of the world? In our efforts to prove our "moral superiority", we are engendering more of the sanctimony that made us a highly unpopular team in the first place.

CA's backed itself into a corner on this one, Mark. If they reduce the penalties any time soon, they'll be accused of going soft on these guys. If they leave the penalties in place, you're right, they're significantly penalising Australian cricket. Maybe they could do something closer to Xmas and let them play in the Shield or domestic ODIs in the New Year. As I've said previously, the penalty is for 12 months for Warner & Smith but this makes their chances of making the World Cup side virtually nil (if they can't play till March), unless they can get some game time under their belts. This then makes the penalty longer than 12 months, which seems grossly unfair.

true....... the icc has got out the lettuce leaf for former ball tamperers and if it was left to the icc.... smith... warner and bancroft would have been lettuce leaved. cricket australia as rushed into a extreme. they have taken matters into their own hands and got out a spikey metal bar that will do permanent damage to australian cricket. it will do damage to the involved players...... it will decrease the australian teams capacity to win... and the popularity of the game will decrease. ultimately it will decrease cricket australias revenue. opposition chronic cricket tampering nations like south africa... india... pakistan and england will be laughing. cricket australia should have left the penalty decision to the icc...... and then campaigned for harsher penalties for ball tampering to the icc. cricket australia should look for "a good behaviour excuse" to reduce the penalities asap to limit the damage of their decision asap...!