"If you must cheat, don't compete" seems to be lost in modern sport

I'm not meaning to condone cheating in any form, there definitely needed to be some sorts of punishments, though I do think they did go a bit over the top with them. But all this other stuff, it's no different from anyone else caught ball tampering. In fact, most players are less forthcoming than the Aussie players were. Most just continue to deny, deny, deny. The biggest difference I see between this and every other ball tampering incident in what happened after the incident is that it's the first instance I've come across where the players cricket board hasn't stood by them and fought against any charges from the ICC to minimise any penalties. Instead, the board threw the players under the bus. As Australian's we've liked to think that in some way we have some sort of moral superiority compared to other countries in playing cricket. It's rubbish, but we like to believe it. CA's over the top penalties are all about trying to maintain that myth of moral superiority by being able to point to this and say, at least if our players do dodgy things we punish them in ways no other country does.

Except the underarm was completely within the laws of the game at that point regardless of what anyone thought of it.

Now David Schout's is closed.

It was. To me that's the low point of Australian cricket. Greg chappell was captain I have never forgiven that act.

Really sorry about this Spruce. Must have been a technical glitch. It's open and fixed now.

Oh dang - I have no idea why it was closed! Editors - can my article please be resubmitted and opened for comments?!?

Hey Sprucey, did you know that your article is closed for comments? None of us can post on it. You'd probably have over a hundred by now if they opened it up. Here was my comment: MooseMan, you are regularly on the money. We'll win because many players who have an opportunity will stand up. I'm expecting us to find some great top order batting. I hope one of them is Marcus Harris. I'd like another to be Renshaw but he may not get a go because of recent form. I'm hoping our quicks will perform because the moment they are not on the top of their games, we'll utter the 'R' word (rest/rotate) and they will slip a gear. Prediction: Kohli will become Hazlewood's bunny.

Where to start with this garbage? We know that you are desperate for the Cricket Trio to have their bans lifted immediately because in your book cheating is all good unless caught. Thankfully CA upheld the bans and it will send the right message to aspiring senior and junior players that you will be punished should you break the rules. The behavior in South Africa was the lowest point for the Australian Cricket team in its history (Trevor Chappell and his brothers will be relieved) and hopefully they can now start rebuilding their reputations and careers when they rejoin the team in 2019. As for the Rugby League Scrum? Write an article on the Rugby League thread about the scrum and maybe focus on the fact that the NRL and the referees obviously don’t care about this aspect of the game, hence all the sideways feeds. In League the scrum serves no purpose and could be removed next season without any impact on the game whatsoever. Trying to link the rugby league scrum with what the Aussie Cricketers did in South Africa (premeditated decision to cheat, lie to the umpire, lie some more in the press conference, drag teammates not involved in the issue into the issue and then finally admit the truth when there was nowhere to hide) is laughable.

Well said, although I reckon a few people would argue that the underarm ball was a worse example of the things you listed!

It's not the same thing at all, Paul. David's whole argument is underpinned by the bizarre notion that every form of cheating deserves roughly the same level of penalty. It's like saying that in criminal law, a gentle shove to the chest is on par with a full-blooded punch to the jaw because technically they are both 'assault'. Or, to use a sporting analogy, that using PEDs in AFL is akin to pushing your opponent in the back because hey, they're both against the rules.

It's not like D. Lord to make up "facts" to prove a point.. "Since the code’s inauguration in 1908, the law has read – “The ball shall be fed into the scrum at the centre of the tunnel between the two packs”." Nowhere in the laws does it mention this, all the person feeding the scrum has to do is stand square to the scrum and feed with 2 hands. Also, where did you get the stats from that claim Cam Smith has never hooked at the ball in a scrum? I find it incredible that you have watched every single scrum that he has ever packed into and kept a record of this. According to you though, he has "played nearly 500 NRL, Origin, and international games, and not once – repeat, not once – has he ever hooked for the ball". But never let the facts get in the way of a good story though..

Chris, You manifestly missed the point of why they were suspended. I've posted below - I encourage you to read. It seems you all gleefully overlook the breaches of the CA code of conduct that occurred and focused only on the ball tampering. Ball tampering is not the sole reason they were suspended. And btw, this wasn't just a small step further when crossing the line. This was a senior player teaching a junior player how to cheat. "And while some people argue that they all accepted the penalties, it really was pretty hard for them not to. " Absolutely wrong - legally they didn't have a leg to stand on. Their sustained breaches of the code of conduct was plain and clear. The process behind the suspensions were clear and fair. There was no chance of a successful appeal (to appeal, you only can appeal on procedural flaws, not the severity of the punishment). Here's a riddle for you: What does Atherton, Waqar, Afridi, du Plessis, Dravid, Chandimal have in common?

I predicted this yesterday...it was inevitable you would miss the point. Again. You continually seem to delude yourself into thinking they were suspended for ball tampering. They weren't. As CA said yesterday: "Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were found in breach of Article 2.3.5 of the CA Code of Conduct, namely that their conduct: (a) was contrary to the spirit of the game; (b) was unbecoming of a representative or official; (c) is or could be harmful to the interests of cricket; and/or (d) did bring the game of cricket into disrepute." It is without question that they did all of those things - to a level not seen by an Australian cricketer, arguably ever. David, please understand this: David Warner sat down in the dressing room and taught someone (a junior) how to cheat and then threw him under the bus later. Steve Smith condoned it, and then threw 'the leadership group' under the bus later. They lied to the umpires. They initially lied to the public. They weren't suspended for ball tampering...it was the catalyst for the subsequent infringements.

David, cheating or gaining an unfair advantage has been part of ALL sports since they were first formed. That's why we have rules and more importantly, why we have officials to interpret and set a standard of application for the rules. You're issue is with the players who are breaking the rules in a range of codes.My issue is with the umpires and other sporting rule makers who fail to enforce the rules, so things like ball tampering, offside, forward passes & scrum infringements or the worst ofall in my view, DIVING in soccer, become the "norm". At some point, those in charge of all sports have to decide what's acceptable or not, BUT if they think that leaving a crease early at the non-strikers end is okay, then legislate that into the game. Don't leave the old rule in place which only creates issues like the one you've raised.

Yes they are Wayne, if both actions are deliberate. Ritchie McCaw, from the All Blacks spent a significant part of his playing career deliberately in offside positions. It's cheating, pure and simple.

Or the actor who plays Macbeth, introducing a dagger, gets to perform again the next night...(speaking of staged examples).

Ah yes! "Kelmscott captain, fellas!" (Pleasant applause).

Yeah, and wrestlers never get pinged for introducing foreign objects into the ring.

A player being offside is not in the same category as taking a foreign object onto the playing arena with the intention of altering the state of the equipment in play. Enforcing the Rules/Laws of the game and Bringing the Game into Disrepute are different things

I have made similar sorts of comments since this whole thing came out. Sure, what they did definitely crossed "the line" but in reality, it's only one small step further than what goes on the whole time. In cricket, it's a constant battle to try and get the ball to swing. Players try whatever they can to rough up one side and shine the other. I reckon there would be few cricketers who haven't lathered on the sunscreen extra thick to give them a bit they can wipe off and use in shining the ball. Anything that can push the limits of legality to help rough up the non-shiny side will be used, throwing into the pitch on returns, bowling cross-seam deliveries etc. Occasionally blatantly wrong things are then added to that and sometimes they get caught. But it's the same in every sport. Every time a football player grabs the jersey off an opposing number they are cheating, every time a rugby league player tries to push the limits of holding a player down, or even more a tackled player sort of holds on to the tackler to make it harder for them to get up while pretending to attempt to get up themselves, trying to earn a penalty, it's cheating. The term "gamesmanship" is often thrown around when players do these little cheating things. Doesn't make it any better. Yet these players do an offence which carries a maximum sentence of a couple of matches suspension and very few players even get that much for it, and then everyone is in uproar and they get slapped with ridiculous year long suspensions that involve many millions of dollars in losses. It's hard to not look at such things as way over the top. And while some people argue that they all accepted the penalties, it really was pretty hard for them not to. It was all built up in such a way that they would have had it impressed on them that any attempt to fight the sanctions would reflect really badly on them, so they should just accept them as part of a "path to redemption".