3rd Test England v Pakistan, Edgbaston, Aug 3-7.

[Making_Splinters]

Well, I'd be interested as to how many times any bowler has been sanctioned for snatching an item off the umpire, shaking their heads as a level 1 breach of the code of conduct in recent years?

If one were to claim that there is a different set of rules being applied I'm sure there are many instances of other bowlers being charged for the same thing?

[backfootpunch]

Doesn't mean it should still go on.
Also big difference in being an competitor and abusing people in the field.

Having a chirp is generally harmless

And personally I enjoy the bowlers having a go every know and then

It can lead to some thrilling passages of play

Things like Ambrose against Steve Waugh
Think of Donald steaming in against Atherton
Devon malcolm destroying south africa

Take the aggression out of the game and you lose a part of it that makes cricket the best sport

At the end of the day there is something inherently violent in flinging a ball at another person as fast as you can

As long as both parties behave like men and can shake hands and have a beer at the end of the game I see no issue with it

[Dr Cricket]

To put it into perspective quite a lot of Indian and Australia players got fined last time they met in a test series, a lot of them didn't do much compared to what Anderson did.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It was at the end of an over where the umpire turned down a decision, which England didn't contest, and which was proved correct by tv replays. Though Anderson had been fuming for a while, I think since a catch went down. In itself, what we saw wasn't usual on an international cricket field. I'd expect the player to lose some of his match fee. And obviously some will see the incident (as I do) in the context of a long term lack of discipline.

Anderson did say that he didn't need the anger anymore. Now he again says he needs it.

Fast bowlers (I'm not sure Anderson really counts as someone who needs a degree of intimidation personally, but others will feel differently, or not accept one type of bowler should be excused the kind of behaviour not tolerated in others, which works both for and against Anderson) might frequently snip away at the batters, but turning it on the umpires is quite a different thing.

[Dr Cricket]

Doesn't mean it should still go on.
Also big difference in being an competitor and abusing people in the field.

Having a chirp is generally harmless

And personally I enjoy the bowlers having a go every know and then

It can lead to some thrilling passages of play

Things like Ambrose against Steve Waugh
Think of Donald steaming in against Atherton
Devon malcolm destroying south africa

Take the aggression out of the game and you lose a big part of it

At the end of the day there is something inherently violent in flinging a ball at another person as fast as you can

As long as both parties behave like men and can shake hands and have a beer at the end of the game

Agree with this but like I said before a lot of the personal stuff need to go, think bumble or some of the comms said a lot of the sledging that take place isn't that nice and shouldn't take place, only a matter of time till something ugly take place in the field.
For sledging to be fun and a good thing umpires need to be strict so it doesn't get out of hand and in recent time sledging been going over the top.

[Arthur Crabtree]

As long as both parties behave like men and can shake hands and have a beer at the end of the game I see no issue with it

Well, he doesn't do that! Socialise after play. But I don't hold that against him- it's his choice.

[backfootpunch]

To put it into perspective quite a lot of Indian and Australia players got fined last time they met in a test series, a lot of them didn't do much compared to what Anderson did.

Was this when the Indians gave warner a send off only for it to be a no ball

Then warner shouted something back

Personally I thought that was brilliant to watch

[Making_Splinters]

Well, did they do the same thing? A Level 1 breach covers a myriad of different things - there are 8 separate categories of offences that can fall under it - so to simply say this player received a Level 1 breach and this one did not doesn't actually mean very much.

In order to actually say there is a different set of rules being applied, then you need to actually have cases where two players have done roughly the same thing and received different sanctions.

So, are there examples of this to look at, or not?

[backfootpunch]

As long as both parties behave like men and can shake hands and have a beer at the end of the game I see no issue with it

Well, he doesn't do that! Socialise after play. But I don't hold that against him- it's his choice.

As long as they can shake hands at the end of it that's all that really matters

I think socialising with the opposition after the game went out of the game a while ago didn't it

[Arthur Crabtree]

Well, I'd be interested as to how many times any bowler has been sanctioned for snatching an item off the umpire, shaking their heads as a level 1 breach of the code of conduct in recent years?

If one were to claim that there is a different set of rules being applied I'm sure there are many instances of other bowlers being charged for the same thing?

Plus the angry verbal volley. Obviously some will find this less acceptable than others. For me, taking out your frustrations on the umpire is a no-no.

[backfootpunch]

Well, did they do the same thing? A Level 1 breach covers a myriad of different things - there are 8 separate categories of offences that can fall under it - so to simply say this player received a Level 1 breach and this one did not doesn't actually mean very much.

In order to actually say there is a different set of rules being applied, then you need to actually have cases where two players have done roughly the same thing and received different sanctions.

So, are there examples of this to look at, or not?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v ... 10147.html

Think he might mean that

So no its not the same sort of thing if so

I think had jimmy done anything more than show frustration then they'd have done something

[Arthur Crabtree]

As long as both parties behave like men and can shake hands and have a beer at the end of the game I see no issue with it

Well, he doesn't do that! Socialise after play. But I don't hold that against him- it's his choice.

As long as they can shake hands at the end of it that's all that really matters

I think socialising with the opposition after the game went out of the game a while ago didn't it

I remember during the last English summer, there was a bit of talk about 'having a drink after play' and offers accepted and refused. In one case, England went into the opposition dressing room, and Anderson wondered what they were doing there, and left. I certainly don't find fault with that! Maybe adds to the reasons the Aussies don't like him though.

[Dr Cricket]

Tbh can't remember since must be 5 or 6 instances of players being fined think Ishant or Warner were in a warning for a suspension, think Ishant could have been banned for a game for essentially doing something harmless in one of the game.
Umpires were very strict and were told to be by the icc to follow the rules to the max.

Can imagine the next ashes series would be the same.

Agee that some of the contest was good to watch, but you could probably make a case icc ban or fine the wrong sort of sledging since the Aussie and India players enjoyed it and shaked hands afterwards.

I know it sounds like I am picking on Anderson here but Anderson tends to be a player than carry on the sledging too long and players don't like that.
Some of the Indian players/ Aussie players are friend and tended to smile later.
Think wahab riaz spell in the World Cup should be how sledging should take place and he got fined after that lol for a clap.

[backfootpunch]

Well, I'd be interested as to how many times any bowler has been sanctioned for snatching an item off the umpire, shaking their heads as a level 1 breach of the code of conduct in recent years?

If one were to claim that there is a different set of rules being applied I'm sure there are many instances of other bowlers being charged for the same thing?

Plus the angry verbal volley. Obviously some will find this less acceptable than others. For me, taking out your frustrations on the umpire is a no-no.

I completely agree but if the umpires were happy with his apology and didn't feel the need to take it any further then I am happy to trust there judgement as we can never really know the exact details of what was said on the field and in private between jimmy and the umpires

Had they gone the other way and reported him I would have been fine with that call as well

[Making_Splinters]

Well, I'd be interested as to how many times any bowler has been sanctioned for snatching an item off the umpire, shaking their heads as a level 1 breach of the code of conduct in recent years?

If one were to claim that there is a different set of rules being applied I'm sure there are many instances of other bowlers being charged for the same thing?

Plus the angry verbal volley. Obviously some will find this less acceptable than others. For me, taking out your frustrations on the umpire is a no-no.

The angry verbal volley, which of course no one seems to know the content of! If Jimmy was offensive verbally towards an umpire, then I'd be more than happy to chastise him for it.

As for tasking his frustrations out on the umpire, did he? That's a rather emotive turn of phrase to use, again there isn't any evidence to warrant it.

Mountain out of a mole hill based on what is actually in the public domain, and unlike sum, I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath water.