Does he throw or not throw, that is the question.

[SaintPowelly]

also you can't compare taking PEDs with chucking.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I was a bit disappointed Yorks asked him to bowl. But he was allowed to bowl, so I can't see a punishment is appropriate. Hopefully he won't be given the ball again though.

[Alviro Patterson]

Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

Don't be daft, Williamson was allowed to bowl in the meantime and Yorkshire broke no rules. It's like saying Darren Stevens should not have played for Kent whilst suspected of failing to report illegal betting approaches.

[hopeforthebest]

Williamson is only banned for international games so Yorkshire can bowl him if they wish. Let's hope they don't do so.

[sussexpob]

Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

Don't be daft, Williamson was allowed to bowl in the meantime and Yorkshire broke no rules. It's like saying Darren Stevens should not have played for Kent whilst suspected of failing to report illegal betting approaches.

Williamson playing for Yorkshire did break the rules, and in doing so, gave them an unfair advantage. The fact he was allowed to bowl until the hearing is neither here nor there, that's is a risk that Yorkshire took when he was cited for his action.

Williamson cheated for the benefit of himself and, naturally, his team. I don't see how its a sensible conclusion to say that someone can cheat and the team take all the benefit of that, but none of the punishment.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I agree he shouldn't have bowled. And NZ ideally would have made a judgement themselves before allowing him to bowl. But while Yorks letting KW bowl might have been unethical, how was it unlawful?

[sussexpob]

I agree he shouldn't have bowled. And NZ ideally would have made a judgement themselves before allowing him to bowl. But while Yorks letting KW bowl might have been unethical, how was it unlawful?

He was subsequently proved he was chucking, so he was bowling unlawfully.

[Arthur Crabtree]

But allowed to bowl unlawfully! Warks,at least, have something to feel unhappy about. But if there was no ban in place, I don't see how there can be a formal punishment?

[Arthur Crabtree]

If you are saying the system is wrong, then I agree. The umpires should be able to call bowlers. In the current system, KW was innocent until proven guilty.

[hopeforthebest]

I would have thought the ECB could impose a ban on him for domestic games based upon his action being declared unlawful. It would be strange otherwise.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I hope they do, and arguably they should have. But they didn't. I'd have thought Yorks would have checked if he could have bowled.

[Alviro Patterson]

The ban applies to all cricket matches until Williamson's bowling is sufficiently re-modelled and re-tested.

[Alviro Patterson]

Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

Don't be daft, Williamson was allowed to bowl in the meantime and Yorkshire broke no rules. It's like saying Darren Stevens should not have played for Kent whilst suspected of failing to report illegal betting approaches.

Williamson playing for Yorkshire did break the rules, and in doing so, gave them an unfair advantage. The fact he was allowed to bowl until the hearing is neither here nor there, that's is a risk that Yorkshire took when he was cited for his action.

Williamson cheated for the benefit of himself and, naturally, his team. I don't see how its a sensible conclusion to say that someone can cheat and the team take all the benefit of that, but none of the punishment.

Which rules have Yorkshire supposedly broken then?

[sussexpob]

Which rules have Yorkshire supposedly broken then?

Law 42.18, with reference to preamble point 5, and potentially 3/4

5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
....
To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice

Law 42.18. Players’ conduct

If there is any breach of the Spirit of the Game
either in the case of an unfair action not covered by the Laws, under 2 above,
or by a player,
either failing to comply with the instructions of an umpire,
or criticising an umpire’s decisions by word or action,
or showing dissent,
or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute,
the umpire concerned shall immediately report the matter to the other umpire.

(iii) report the occurrence as soon as possible after the match to the Executive of the player’s team and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and player or players and, if appropriate, team concerned.

[sussexpob]

If you think its within the spirit of the game to take wickets by throwing then I have no answer for you