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

SP,

Message sent

yuppie wrote:SP,

Message sent

Thanks

sussexpob wrote:

sussexpob wrote: I always had a personal suspicion that the cricket players association would force the issue of the lengthy bans with the National Board. They promised an investigation into the bans, saying that they had no justification. I just wonder maybe if that narrative could suddenly reappear in the next few weeks, that the bans were unjust, and suddenly, magically lifted.

Et voila!

It occurs to me that this is all a bit of a plan, as highlighted a few weeks ago. The ACA spoke out passionately about the lack of legal justifications of the bans and that they would fight them, then suddenly retreated into the bunker claiming they needed time (you need 7 months to check this out??? seriously???) . If they really thought the bans were unjustified from that perspective, then surely they as a players union had the responsibility to make issue of it there and then, and legally fight the bans as soon as they were issued, or at least put in motion straightaway the legal mechanics to fight it? It all seems its a bit of a rouse, that the ACA were delaying any full bloodied assault for another day.

Now, as predicted, they have come back. The timing is very convienent. I'd have to guess there is a lot of collusion going on here. The players association agreeing to not action anything until some ban had been served, the CA making it look like their hands are tied will lift the bans, and everyone walks away happy that justice is served.

Sorry but the conspiracy theory sounds as nutty as such theories generally are...

The Players association fancied contesting the bans initially ; the players declined to fight them. And the notion of CA and the ACA being ready to cooperate on anything - let alone a hidden agenda to water down the (arguably harsh) sanctions on the players - is frankly ludicrous .

Can't blame the union having a go for their members - though I'm not sure Smith , for instance , will really want this raked over again (Bancroft has already says he doesn't want to argue over what's left of his time out) But even with CA discredited I'd be shocked if they went back on their original decisions. And after all : no matter the responsibility of the governing body in setting a poisonous culture ; the actions of the players are still deserving of strong censure.
You can argue the bans were on the heavy side. But I think that showed that CA - in a rare moment of clarity - came to see just what this episode had done to the reputation of Australian sport (something very dear to people in this country) and decided to act firmly to make sure it never happens again. Not as if the officials have got off either : from coach to chairman they have pretty much all fallen on their swords by now....
At least the players get to come back after they've served their time.

alfie wrote:You can argue the bans were on the heavy side. But I think that showed that CA - in a rare moment of clarity - came to see just what this episode had done to the reputation of Australian sport

I would love it to have been a rare moment of clarity, but I imagine if we were to dig deep enough, we'd probably find that there was a concern that large sums of corporate/sponsorship money might be put at risk by a weak response to the Australia product being seen to be tarnished

other than that, I agree with everything you said

at the risk of appearing naive, DF, I think it was more CA being concerned with a large swathe of the Aus Cricket fanbase disappearing if strong and swift action wasn't taken.

Same as they risk, but to a lesser extent, if they drop the bans on the players.

They lost cash from sponsors immediately. A loss of a big chunk of their customers (us) will lead directly to a loss of sponsorship dollars.

fair enough

Alfie,

Smith has remained silent so far, which seems to me (and to the Sydney Morning Herald, who currently carry an article on the matter) that his silence speaks volumes on what his opinions or hopes are. Smith has the nuke button at his disposal here, if he was to come out and indicate he would subject himself to his original ban and remove himself from selection regardless of any subsequent outcomes, the whole issue could go away.And the whole issue going away is really good for Australia, because the battle raging at the moment has the potential to really separate different factions of fans, and no one is truly winning...... so I am not too sure we can really take Smith's original comments in March as any gospel. He might decide in the next week to come out, but until he does (and 3 days in the current environment feels like a long time to stay silent if he was going to) Id have to assume he wants to come back asap.

As for the ACA and CA, I subject myself to the Aussies on the board here as to the specific detail of their legal system, but most legal systems based on the UKs common law systems place tremendously tight limitations on bringing actions of unfair treatment by employees. A quick check suggests that Australia law is unbelievably strict, with legal actions having a 21 day time limit (jee wizz, I thought three months in England was ridiculous, this takes the biscuit!!!)..... the ACA pledged to fight the fairness of these rulings, but they have almost certainly refrained from action inside the appropriate time period (unless such a right exists in general law of contract, but as I said, generally in common law systems its specifically defined inside Employment Law). So any pledge, despite it being repeated, seems to be for window dressing than any truthful willingness to take this matter to the appropriate forum. If it was truthful, this probably should have ended up in court straight away. Waiting for any external report, while appearing sensible, also renders your attempts at subsequent legal action completely impotent.

You might say Smith et al's refusal to appeal the bans would be the reason for that, but the ACA is a trade union. They have a right and a duty to bring forward actions in the benefit not only of those accused, but of their membership in general. Having an established precedent of such lengthy bans, while ICC regulations governing the same matches (and established punishment precedent) falls greatly below that being given, would on appearance be quite a carbon copy case for a TU to act on behalf of its members, regardless of the environment of the decision. In fact, one could argue that not bringing this matter to court in the appropriate legal time limitation has left cricketers in Australia facing bans of dubious merit in the future, and that in itself is a failure of the ACA to act in the interests of its members. The fact that CA also chose to technically ban them under the spirit of the laws, when a specific charge of ball tampering existed and the guidelines pretty indicative (and ironically, the choice is used dubiously by the CA to underline why their bans were fair), leaves another precedent that the ACA should have a field day on in courts. If the CA ignored its own policy, it should be (a) very easy for the ACA to act regardless of the players in questions desire (b) it would appear on the detail available, they would probably have been successful.

The timing also seems rather dubious. When England got thumped in the 2006-07 Ashes, I believe the ECB's independent review that essentially had no limitations set as to improving the game on all levels, started after the tour ended (mid-feb?) and was concluded in full by the start of the international summer. This was a deep report, I think Schofield even set up public Q&A forums, spoke to counties, grassroots representatives, pretty much everything he possibly could. This report has taken about 7 months to reach a conclusion, and has more limited scope. It came straight after a test thumping, and very close to a marquee series. It doesnt feel like this is an accident, it feels like the report has been held back to hit the public at the right time. Key batting replacements failing in UAE, big series on the way, the passing of significant time from the incident for it to die down.

Put it all together, and it does feel like its been a conscious gearing towards getting to the position now where all relevant parties wanted to test the water on the bans. Had the ACA gone and overturned the bans in April like they could have by challenging the bans in court, the results would have been rejected by the public. I think personally thats why its been held back and the ACA didnt do it......

Rather than being "frankly ludicrious or nutty", Id say its likely all parties involved have geared themselves up to get to this point before the home international summer starts, and then tip their toes in the water and see what the public appetite was like to overturn the bans.

GarlicJam wrote:at the risk of appearing naive, DF, I think it was more CA being concerned with a large swathe of the Aus Cricket fanbase disappearing if strong and swift action wasn't taken.

Same as they risk, but to a lesser extent, if they drop the bans on the players.

They lost cash from sponsors immediately. A loss of a big chunk of their customers (us) will lead directly to a loss of sponsorship dollars.

Who would want to be the CA chairman now

Rock and a hard place really. Seems to be of a Brexit situation, where any choice made will lead to large groups of the fans rebelling against the decision. Pick the banned players, be successful, alienate fans, lose revenue, the whole system suffers. Or go into a big series purposefully with one hand tied behind your back, likely get smashed, the continued narrative of decline and problems in the game becomes louder, the feel good factor declines, people turn away, lose revenue, etc etc. A very delicate balancing act is needed. Whichever way they go, it wont be universally popular. The Aussie media seems to be talking of a cricketing civil war, and it does feel a little like that.

Sadly, winning will be the main component needed for the Aussies to drag themselves out the funk, but the irony is, in trying to win at all costs, you go back to square one.

CA top job is challenging the UK's PM role for "worst job to have in 2018"....

Id probably favour the DFM take, but then again I am cynical. I think if the CA could have an out that p*ssed off the fans, but that didnt affect the financial bottom line, they would take that over any conclusion. The whole reaction to the fans nowadays, in any sport that has a financial profit to it, seems only important in how responding to it saves profits.

sussexpob wrote: but then again I am cynical.

surely not!

Durhamfootman wrote:

sussexpob wrote: but then again I am cynical.

surely not!

Bet that made you fall off your chair, that admission..... you seen me as such a bastion of positive light, and all.

always