Arthur Crabtree wrote:backfootpunch wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:backfootpunch wrote: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.
Making_Splinters wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:Making_Splinters wrote: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.
backfootpunch wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:backfootpunch wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:backfootpunch wrote: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.
Tbh I probably wouldn't go and have a beer with the likes of David Warner and even Steve Smith (Smith really just comes across as an arse)
Especially after the walkabout incident in birmingham
Making_Splinters wrote:If there is wide spread issues between two groups of players during a game, then you'd expect the umpires to come down hard to put a stop to it compared to a stand alone incident involving a single player.
Well, if there aren't any examples of players committing the same, or at least very similar actions, and getting a sanction, then I guess we can quickly put to bed the claims of differential treatment.
Making_Splinters wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:Making_Splinters wrote: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.
bhaveshgor wrote:Making_Splinters wrote:If there is wide spread issues between two groups of players during a game, then you'd expect the umpires to come down hard to put a stop to it compared to a stand alone incident involving a single player.
Well, if there aren't any examples of players committing the same, or at least very similar actions, and getting a sanction, then I guess we can quickly put to bed the claims of differential treatment.
Well Anderson did orginally get away with the jadeja stuff and jadeja was the one that got fine before India appealed the decision and then both players got a fine.
It is pretty much prove of differential treatments so it does happen but wouldn't say it is because of nation bias more of icc not following the rules consistently, actually Anderson got angry because of the same point he thought the umpire was picking on him because of the 3rd umpire telling him to, have to remember Anderson was probably running on the pitch for most of his career and it is only now the umpires are being strict.
Plenty of players got fined for excessive sledging and Anderson nearly got away with it and unlike past cases India didn't like it and actually complained.
Differential treatment is provably quite common really considering some series they are strict and some series they are not,
In this series alone they are following the running on the pitch law to the max.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Making_Splinters wrote:Arthur Crabtree wrote:Making_Splinters wrote: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.
As I said earlier, I don't think the content has to be known, though that might make things worse. I think the non verbal aggression towards the officials was unreasonable.
Return to Live Cricket Matches
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests