Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Durhamfootman wrote:

captaincolly wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:it is

they haven't argued against it though.

No and they have dropped 3 of their players for the next game.

I'm guessing it might have been them, then

Tehy are young, they are learning, according to Farbrace

It sounds as if one of the incidents involved trying to trip one of the Leicestershire batters!
Had a look and Leicester were docked 2 T20 points last year and it cost them a place in the QF's.

that's right. I think yorkshire were the beneficiaries of that

Durhamfootman wrote:Woth noting that while Sussex got a 12 point deduction for 4 separate instances of indiscipline

I find it personally interesting that the level of pettiness and adherence to the rules is very selective from umpires, and that in at least two of these "indiscipline" questions, Sussex had questioned the application of the rules being used by the umpire directly before the instance that was cited, and each time the umpire responded by faulting their own behaviour. It would very much seem that valid questions raised to the umpire just paint a target on your face.

Take Pujara's citing in the match v Durham. Late in the day with Sussex closing on the target at speed (until a very late collapse changed the match), Durham clearly started time wasting, especially when bowling to Pujara. Two helmets were brought onto the field, and at one point it seemed every ball the field was being changed, with the helmet passed consistently between the keeper and whatever fielder was coming in/out of fielding short. On balls where the helmet wasnt swapped around, the Durham keeper would walk up to indicate he was coming to field up to the stumps, and several times he changed his mind. Pujara raised this time wasting to the umpire, and was told to get on with it. Worth noting in this instance, the rules specifically say that to avoid time wasting, any helmets brought onto the field must be worn until a drop of wicket or the next interval, and cannot be taken off. So, Pujara's question to the umpire should have lead to the umpire applying this rule, but he instead ignored it.

When Pujara then mistimed his pull shot to the legside fielder a few balls later, he walked off half way to the pavillion when he swung his bat and hit the ground, a gesture that was neither violent or noticeable, but one that indicated some controlled frustration - he was cited for that by an eagle eyed umpire who must have been following him all the way back to his hutch wanting to find some fault for daring to question why he wasnt doing his job.

The ECB then decided he had basically done nothing wrong, didn't give him any penalty points, but logged the incident raised by the umpires as the lowest level of infraction.... meanwhile, one of Durham's players sprinted on the field to join the team to celebrate the wicket, which was deemed absolutely fine behaviour at the same time. Dominic Bess purposefully and with force, threw a ball at a batsman in a game around the same time, and got the same level of citing/punishment.

Do I think any of these things Durham did are worthy of notice..... absolutely not. But if we are going to deduct points for the most petty things, then why the umpire decide to ignore various breaches of the rules and fault one team?

The second citing Sussex received was for an issue in the Yorkshire game.

Shai Hope was batting in a tight run chase, and kept on leaving his crease as soon as the ball passed him to tap away at the pitch, including to spinners. Sussex informed both the umpire and the player that if he did it again before the umpire signalled the ball dead, the keeper would stump him, and they asked the umpire to wary of that and clearly signal dead ball if he considered it dead.

Hope then ignored this plea, and was stumped out straight after. The umpire, who had not called dead ball, then refused to acknowledge the appeal. Sussex, who had just taken a legitimate wicket, were told by the umpire the ball was not dead but the umpire wanted the appeal to be withdrawn. Sussex refused, so the umpire ruled it not out, contrary to the rules.

Tom Haines was cited in the aftermath. Worth noting again, there are a range of offences relating to conduct in dealing with the umpire - if he had sworn, been aggressive, deemed to excessively appeal, refused the umpires decision, argued etc etc.... specific charge.

He was charged instead on the catch all "something else the umpire doesn't like"..... another lowest level offence for something that wasnt arguing with the decision in a negative or problematic way.

Defo not just the umpire trying to uncover his own incompetence. The umpire makes up his own rules, and if you say something in a polite way or ask a question why, the ECB destroy your season

Durhamfootman wrote: they haven't argued against it though.

No point. The ECB are the sole judge of what is right or wrong.

It used to be that the captains would write a report on the umpires after each game. So at least their views would formally get back to the ECB. Might be the sort of red tape that gets ripped up by light touch governing bodies these days though.

sussexpob wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote: they haven't argued against it though.

No point. The ECB are the sole judge of what is right or wrong.

it's a very unsatisfatory process. No doubt about that. Always feels completely arbitrary

Durhamfootman wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote: they haven't argued against it though.

No point. The ECB are the sole judge of what is right or wrong.

it's a very unsatisfatory process. No doubt about that. Always feels completely arbitrary

Yes, it does seem random.

and the amount of points deducted also seem completely arbitrary. 48 points for years of institutional racism.... 10 points for a bat that was the wrong size

imagine if 4 of our players had borrowed Maddinson's spare bats for that match..... we could have ended up with a bigger points deduction than Yorks

madness!

Durhamfootman wrote:and the amount of points deducted also seem completely arbitrary. 48 points for years of institutional racism.... 10 points for a bat that was the wrong size

imagine if 4 of our players had borrowed Maddinson's spare bats for that match..... we could have ended up with a bigger points deduction than Yorks

madness!

Yes, seem to be able to have big points deductions for trivial/unintentional errors.
Not sure of the details of the Sussex one but, according to The Times, Paul Farbrace and Rob Andrew are "livid" with the players involved and fully accept the decision. No doubt further details will come out but dropping 3 of the players suggests The Times story is right. Such a shame though.

captaincolly wrote: Yes, seem to be able to have big points deductions for trivial/unintentional errors.
Not sure of the details of the Sussex one but, according to The Times, Paul Farbrace and Rob Andrew are "livid" with the players involved and fully accept the decision. No doubt further details will come out but dropping 3 of the players suggests The Times story is right. Such a shame though.

The Carson one is on video, and we cannot complain about that one really. He does shove a foot out to block the runner, I don't know if he was tripping him as people have suggested, but just blocking the batter to get a reaction - but either way, can't argue against that. As far as I am aware, Tom Haines one from the same time is for excessive appealing. Ari hasn't been cited, so I have no idea why he was dropped in connection with what happened, but I guess Sussex are trying to show they are taking it seriously. As the points deduction is based on 4 fixed penalty notices, my points above were arguing that the first two of these were patently ridiculous.

When Luke Wells was cited for banging his bat into the pitch, the CDC justified it on the grounds he hit the pitch near the bowlers landing spot, therefore it required a level 1 breach - Pujara was half way to the Pavilion....

In fact, there are a lot of inconsistencies. Glamorgan fielded an illegible player in 3 games, including a game they beat Sussex in last year - they received a fine of 750 quid and no other sanction.

Lancashire got a 6 point deduction last year for discipline - They had 5 fixed penalty notices, which triggered a suspended 12 point deduction. They then had another 2 in a game straight after, and were given a 6 point deduction. The CDC said that they were lenient because they were all level 1 breaches, which in actual fact, was not true.

Sussex - 1 x level 2 breach, 3 x level 1.... Captain banned, 12 point deduction
Lancs - 6 x level 1 breach, 1 x level 2.... 6 points
Notts .... 1 x level 2, 5 x level 1.... suspended 12 points, no penalty actually given

Work that out?

Durhamfootman wrote:and the amount of points deducted also seem completely arbitrary. 48 points for years of institutional racism.... 10 points for a bat that was the wrong size

In 2020, Mitchell Claydon got the longest suspension ever dished out in English domestic cricket, and Sussex got 24 points deducted, because Claydon got hand sanitizer on the ball in the middle of the first wave of Covid and was deemed to have ball tampered. The rules at the time actually required players to sanitise their hands every 20 minutes, and the government guidance for cricket clubs was for every player to have hand sanitiser in their pockets and use it when they had to touch the ball..... and yet Claydon got firebombed when he got it on the ball.

The most annoying thing was the club and player admitted the charge on the promise of leniency, which is the standard in 99.9% of cases, then the panel decided in this case the admission was aggravating and ping him for it.

Following hygiene guidelines at a time millions around the world were dying, was considered about as half as bad as decades long racism.... way too go ECB

Probably lingering on this longer than I should, but the thing that really grates is, the ECB/CDC often explain their pedantic decisions about player behaviour, by referencing the importance of its impact on society or sporting culture. When a player gets pinging for dissent, they will tell you an example must be set, and cricketers are role models. When Claydon got pinged for the ball tampering, they referenced sandpaper gate, and the combat of cheating through ball tampering having an acute necessity at the time which mitigated the harsh punishment.

And yet, in an era where the combatting of racism and eradicating racist language is arguably the hottest social debate in Western society, you look at some of the judgements the CDC have made on this regard, and they are appallingly narrow sighted.

Take Andrew Gale - He told someone to "button it you y*d" on Twitter to someone Jewish. This is a guy that has told foreign players to bugger off home before, had a huge part in the Yorkshire racism scandal where he has since been found guilty of his part in it (and which was occurring in parallel to the charge the CDC investigated for his online conduct, and had just been dismissed by Yorkshire)..... and yet, he wasn't punished. Far from mentioning the combat of a greater social ill in the form of racism, the CDC decided....

1. The comment was meant to be funny.
2. People direct the term to Leeds fans all the time.
3. Gale did not know what it meant - he just randomly used a antisemitic slur to someone Jewish
4. He was new to Twitter, so for some reason that made it more ok
5. No one complained about the Tweet

I guess it didn't matter that Racism in Football have been fighting for fans to stop singing this term for years, Police have said they will prosecute fans if they do, someone (the Jewish News) did indeed complain about it, hence the issue was one in the first place, and that Tweets are public posts so who they are directed to makes absolutely nothing.... no punishment. Same for Jack Brooks using the n word in post to Tymal Mills, or Ateel Javid posting a list of stereotypical Jewish tropes about they being tight with money. Nothing. The only part of Gale's former conduct and overlapping accusations of racist behaviour was the fact the ECB felt it was harsh to punish him, when accusations of racism had already cost him his job, so his past racist behaviour actually was counted in real terms as a positive for his case. This is absolute utter madness.

So what? Antisemitism and racism, even in institutionalised form that is proven over years and years, gets hardly any punishment.... but my god, if you question an umpire who isn't following the rules, your season will be torn up and burned.

Considering the questions about racism in the game, I doesnt take much to prove there are problems when blatant incidents of it are treated as lenient exceptions, and there is a quite purposeful mechanism to explain it away.

Ha.....

Nobody lingers on things for too long more than I do when it comes to the ECB, SP

keep lingering.......... and it still won't make any bloody sense in 10 years time and it won't have improved in that time either

Northamptonshire and batting coach Ben Smith part ways. Still plenty of calls for Sadler to go.