Bush Lawyers,
Hang on, hang on, hang on, here.
Steady on.
It's not the end of the world.
The sky hasn't fallen in.
Sure, trying to cheat is a really really dumb thing to do, mainly because it didn't work, and they got caught.
Yellow tape! Really? What were they thinking? Sticks out like dogs balls in a hi-viz sock.
They could have got away with it if they had used their heads and a bit of double sided Elastoplast in the strapping around someone's hand.
But when you have a look at the condition of the ball in the close up photographs, it looked well rooted anyway.
And as Bancroft was quick to admit "we tried to rough up one side of the ball to try and get it to reverse [swing], but it didn't work".
And don't they know cricket grounds have been bristling with cameras for years?
Yr under total surveillance these days, guys, right down to yr DNA.
It's not illegal, unless you get caught, right?
Shoving the yellow tape down yr trousers wasn't a great look.
Busted!
It was, how do they say, a "massive fail."
They are guilty of being unbelievably stupid, but not much more.
Just can't see my way clear to be outraged here; not joining the chorus of condemnation.
The old Law 42 has long been the most important and most contentious in the game, for it's infuriating vagueness, and the endless possible interpretations of it.
It introduces all sorts of ill-defined "moral codes" of "accepted behaviour", but there's little debate here that "a line has been crossed" - yet again - because, as Smiffy admits, "it's not in the Spirit of the Game".
In its old, original, simple form...
Law 42 - Fair and Unfair Play:
Law 42.1 "The responsibility lies with the Captains to ensure that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game, as well as within the Laws."
Law 42.2. "The Umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play..."
Laws 42.3 to 42.18. The so-called "Code of Conduct".
The new 'Cake Code' [in force since last October] has changed the numbering of the Laws and has tried to codify bad behaviour by expanding the Code of Conduct into a new Law 42 and attempting to define the 'spirit of the game' by all the possible things that are unlawful under it.
Confused?
Everyone is.
All they have done is to make Laws 41 and 42 much more complex and open to interpretation than they already were, downgraded the fundamental responsibilities of the Captains to run the match, and tried [and failed] to put more power in the hands of the Umpires who now have at their disposal all sorts of weird hand signals to signify unconscionable conduct offences under the new Law 42, but they remain, as always, in an invidious position.
The Umpires, in the case of the new Law 41.3, which deals with "the Match Ball - Altering Its Condition" only have the power to award a five-run penalty for transgression and referring it to the Match Referee for consideration of further action, to wit, charging the idiot with ball tampering the new Law 42.
The only other power the Umpires have, interestingly, is for a second ball tampering offence in the same match, when they can suspend the bowler bowling at the time of the second offence from bowling again in the match, but they cannot dismiss him from the field.
There is no send off rule in cricket, never has been, because of this misconception that it's meant to be a gentleman's game.
My arse it is.
It is hard and it is ruthless.
The new Code still leaves plenty of room for rule bending, and let's face it - everybody cheats - laws are made to be broken.
Some are better at it than others, and cheating is always pre-meditated, the Captain always has a say in it, otherwise it wouldn't happen in a team game.
But the Laws are silent on the matter of conspiracy to cheat.
Cricket, as in life, is rife with cheats, liars, rogues, thieves, cads, and bounders, and Australian teams have been rightly famous and celebrated for their 'sharp practice', and have been since the dawn of time.
Word class sledgers and first rate practitioners of 'psych war', they don't mind naming names and messing with blokes heads, they have been known to threaten on-field violence and have clocked blokes in the player's race as recently as a couple of weeks ago, and belted annoying Poms in bars, they've always given as good as they've got, and they ruthlessly take every opportunity to gain any advantage for themselves - it's the horse called Self Interest.
So, they didn't have much of a reputation to lose, as it was shot to bits anyway.
Under the Cake Code, ball tampering is not a hanging offence by any means: it's only a Level 2 offence under the many many "Code of Conduct" sub-clauses...the same level as Rabada giving Smiffy the hip 'n' shoulder.
Anyone found guilty of it faces a maximum sentence of four demerit points and a one match ban.
Surely the early guilty plea and the extensive outpouring of genuine contrition and miserable remorse must be taken into consideration during sentencing.
However, that's all cloaked in secrecy as recently as what seems like yesterday.
It is not possible to even get a list of witnesses, let alone a transcript of proceedings in the six hour appeal by Rabada against his two match ban for physical contact in a non-contact game.
He was represented by a South African SC, his junior barrister, and South African Cricket's solicitor, in a hearing conducted by some New Zealand QC via Skype while sitting in a hotel room in Auckland, which is about as far away from South Africa as you can get.
Apart from a three paragraph decision, no reasons were given by the presiding QC.
What gives?
Justice was certainly not seen to be done in that case.
Was Smiffy called to give evidence in that particular one?
Who knows, but apparently not.
As it stands, cricket's judicial process is entirely opaque.
So, why wouldn't you try to get away with blue murder under those circumstances?
In a sensible world, Bonkers is guilty of Law 41.3 beyond question, and by direct admission/confession, Smiffy, has pleaded guilty to contravening the old Law 42.1 viz-a-viz "the spirit of the game" [wherever that's now placed in the Cake Code.]
Both should have been suspended for one match for being fools to themselves and a burden on the community - they can sort out their legacies to the game later on - there are no shortage of former Captains who have left the game with "stains on their careers".
But if you want scapegoats - and being Straya - there will always be scapegoats - you might as well sweep the place clean starting with the CEO James Sutherland [where the buck stops], with Boof broomed out with Sutherland's dust, and the rest of the hangers-on, starting with that long-term sponger "high-performance manger" Pat Howard, should be told their 'services' are no longer required, and start again.
As it is, Bonkers for all intents and purposes got off because he was the patsy, and Smiffy took his medicine and has been rubbed out for the next game, but who is to be the next Strayan Captain, given the hastily cobbled together scam was dreamt up by the so-called "leadership group"?
Give the poisoned chalice to Uzzie? - he's a clean skin - and with the form he's in, that's just about the only way he can retain his place in the side.
And it's not as if all this ridiculous hoopla is without precedent here - not by a very long shot - just Google "Ball Tampering Hall of Shame" for a random Top Ten.
It is so easy to forget the Vaseline Incident of 1977/78 which was conveniently swept under the carpet, how Darrell Hair destroyed his umpiring career by calling Pakistani's cheatin' ball tamperers after that all ended in tears with the match abandoned [Hair went on to write a 332 page book about it], or the specially grown seam-lifting fingernail, using pants zippers to rough up the ball, dirt in pocket, what about digging some beer bottle tops into the leather? - works a treat - or even biting the seam of the ball, as some joker did in a T20 match because "I was hungry".
Crikey! That's how laughable it is.
"Mintiegate" seems like it was only five minutes ago.
Two players, including the skipper, have accepted they have done wrong, are very very sorry for making a ridiculous laughing stock out of themselves, and to the extent that the Laws allow, have been punished accordingly.
End of the matter, for mine.
As My Spy at the Ground wisely remarked "cricket, as a gentlemanly pursuit, was as dead as a door nail eons ago".
If cricket wasn't a cruel, ruthless, cut-throat game, it is now so professionalised that results directly impact on bloated pay packets, so it's gloves off, forget the Marquess of Queensberry's rules - anything goes.
Gentlemanly?
Remember Bodyline?
Nobody was ever punished over that, even after it became a diplomatic crisis and Questions were asked about it in Parliament.
The Laws were changed.
Let's leave it to an extract from an article published in The Economist way back in 2013...
"Is it worth legalising ball-tampering? Some former players think so. Sir Richard Hadlee, once of New Zealand, has written in its favour as long as players use “finger nails to scratch the ball, not bottle tops or those sorts of things”. Allan Donald, a former South African player, reckons that teams should be allowed to “prepare the ball” to keep fast bowlers from going extinct in a one-sided contest between bat and ball. Not surprisingly, the International Cricket Council (ICC), the sport’s governing body, frowns upon any suggestions that might bring the game into disrepute. But it needs to act quickly. In formulating new rules, the ICC should get as imaginative as its bowlers, who have used everything from Vaseline to shoe spikes to "look after" the cricket ball. For now, it has only considered banning zips from trousers by 2015."
Craves.
https://www.lords.org/assets/2017-Law-Changes-Summary-Paper.pdf
http://www.cricheaven.com/ball-temparing-in-cricket-hall-of-shame/
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/10/economist-explains-21
We know what Pup thinks...he's having nightmares!
No comments:
Post a Comment