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

What's buzzing in the world of cricket....

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

Postby Alviro Patterson » Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:52 pm

"If" being the operative word. As far as i'm aware, no County umpires have reported Williamson and the ECB haven't taken action against Yorkshire and/or the captains.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies ... 54441.html
As per ICC regulations, Williamson will have to undergo testing of his action within 21 days, but can continue bowling until the results of the test are known.

As Kane Williamson bowled for Yorkshire when the results were not known and a ban not in place at the time, Yorkshire have not broke any rules.
"Stats are there to be broken" Dominic Cork
"They took all our players away, banned our captain and we still came away with a ten-wicket victory" Jason Gillespie
"You won't get anywhere slouching about half out of bed" Geoffrey Boycott


2011-12 Oz vs India Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Oz vs SA Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Bang vs WI combined FL guru | 2013 Friends Life T20 FL guru | 2015 The Ashes FL guru | 2015 County Championship D2 FL guru | 2016 Womens WT20 FL guru| 2016 Eng v Pak Tests FL guru | 2017 Kia Super League FL guru | 2018 County Championship D2 FL guru
User avatar
Alviro Patterson
 
Posts: 17832
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:07 pm
Location: North Cheshire
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire CCC, Bradford City FC

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

Postby sussexpob » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:06 pm

Alviro Patterson wrote:"If" being the operative word. As far as i'm aware, no County umpires have reported Williamson and the ECB haven't taken action against Yorkshire and/or the captains.

As Kane Williamson bowled for Yorkshire when the results were not known and a ban not in place at the time, Yorkshire have not broke any rules.


"If" is not the operative word at all, there is no "if" about it. He chucks, and he did that in matches even when the belief of the umpires in another forum was made known. Yorkshire made a choice to ignore the fact he chucked and continued to allow him to try and cheat his way to wickets, which benefitted them on occasion, and allowed them to field sides that included Kane's capacity to double up as a bowler, take wickets, and give other bowlers a rest. Without the capacity, the whole team fabric has to change, they maybe have to play one bowler or batsman specialist less... the benefits are unquantifiable, but definitely there.

The fact that his action was not illegal at the time, or that anyone has complained, does not change anything. The law relates to "cheating" (which chucking is I am afraid, whether intentionally or unintentionally, successfully or not, it gives an unfair advantage) and to "sharp practices", a term that means to include anything that is "legal", but subsequently found to be unethical or a bending of the rules. Its that "sharp practice" that is it for me. Yorkshire should have known better than to bowl a guy who was called for throwing.

All the "innocent until guilty" nonsense is just a smoke screen. Its been proved at no stage he was innocent, so now we need to assess what we do when guilty, and all those who benefitted from his actions should have that benefit taken away. Its clearly unethical to benefit from cheating, or actions made (and proven) to be against the rules.

So Yorkshire should suffer a points deduction.
Last edited by sussexpob on Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

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

Postby braveneutral » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:09 pm

sussexpob wrote:
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.


The first point has been answered above surely. It was not cheating as it was not illegal bowling until the announcement.

The second point is to do with umpires and their actions when they see misconduct. If the umpires don't deal with it then a player and a team cannot and should not be held accountable.

I may be missing something as I haven't followed the situation that closely but I fail to see how the second point is at all relevant to Williamson or Yorkshire.
Asia Cup 2012 guru
SA vs Oz 2011 combined guru
SA vs Bangladesh Tests guru
NZ vs WI Tests guru
2014 French Open guru
T20 Blast 2014 guru
India vs WI ODIs 2014 guru
2016 French Open guru
2016 Wimbledon guru
2016 RL50 Cup guru
Premier League Final Placings Prediction League 2016/7 guru
England v SA ODIs 2017 guru
Guru.

D/L wrote:Words fail me for once.


17/04/17 - 'The day that history was made'

20/04/17 - Better than Bolt.
User avatar
braveneutral
 
Posts: 20726
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:22 pm
Location: In between the hemispheres
Team(s) Supported: Northants amongst others.

I suppose.

At times.

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

Postby braveneutral » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:11 pm

Someone on trial for a crime does not get treated extra harshly because in the period between the charges being laid and the guilt being proven he lived a normal life.
Asia Cup 2012 guru
SA vs Oz 2011 combined guru
SA vs Bangladesh Tests guru
NZ vs WI Tests guru
2014 French Open guru
T20 Blast 2014 guru
India vs WI ODIs 2014 guru
2016 French Open guru
2016 Wimbledon guru
2016 RL50 Cup guru
Premier League Final Placings Prediction League 2016/7 guru
England v SA ODIs 2017 guru
Guru.

D/L wrote:Words fail me for once.


17/04/17 - 'The day that history was made'

20/04/17 - Better than Bolt.
User avatar
braveneutral
 
Posts: 20726
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:22 pm
Location: In between the hemispheres
Team(s) Supported: Northants amongst others.

I suppose.

At times.

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

Postby sussexpob » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:33 pm

braveneutral wrote:Someone on trial for a crime does not get treated extra harshly because in the period between the charges being laid and the guilt being proven he lived a normal life.


Indeed, but if a director of a company was charged with a fraud or something like "insider trading", and before trial he continued to act illegally, one could not say those actions were not illegal simply because there is a natural gap between his arrest and sentencing. Those acts are illegal, and should be punished, and any resultant economic or competitive benefit would be remedied. Actions which are illegal are not legal simply because they are yet to be proved.

In the criminal law you have to remember where there is a chance of reoffending, whether proved or not, bail is usually refused.... and in civil courts, a judge will grant an injunction pending trial to stop a potential illegal act from reoccurring.

In employment law, a person facing a disciplinary or tribunal should be suspending pending a decision.

In "normal life", you don't often find a defendant in the position to continually offend once charged for that offence.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

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

Postby SaintPowelly » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:36 pm

Its an interesting debate, I can certainly see both sides of it.

The ECB probably should of banned him from bowling whilst under review.
Last edited by SaintPowelly on Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bang-NZ ODI prediction guru
India vs Oz ODI fantasy league 2013
SA-WI Tests fantasy league 2015
Sheffield Shield fantasy league 2014-2015
SaintPowelly
 
Posts: 18527
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 pm
Team(s) Supported: Hampshire Cricket, Southampton Football

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

Postby braveneutral » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:56 pm

sussexpob wrote:
braveneutral wrote:Someone on trial for a crime does not get treated extra harshly because in the period between the charges being laid and the guilt being proven he lived a normal life.


Indeed, but if a director of a company was charged with a fraud or something like "insider trading", and before trial he continued to act illegally, one could not say those actions were not illegal simply because there is a natural gap between his arrest and sentencing. Those acts are illegal, and should be punished, and any resultant economic or competitive benefit would be remedied. Actions which are illegal are not legal simply because they are yet to be proved.

In the criminal law you have to remember where there is a chance of reoffending, whether proved or not, bail is usually refused.... and in civil courts, a judge will grant an injunction pending trial to stop a potential illegal act from reoccurring.

In employment law, a person facing a disciplinary or tribunal should be suspending pending a decision.

In "normal life", you don't often find a defendant in the position to continually offend once charged for that offence.

But the point is that he was not committing any offence until the day that the announcement was made - chucking is never as cut and dried as a criminal charge pre-testing as it is all subjective and is probably more cut and dried after testing than a criminal case post-conviction as it is completely objective. No blame in this situation lies with the player or the club but with the administrators, the system and the umpires. From an hr perspective it is my experience that people are suspended only in the most serious of cases but not at all in all situations. In normal life people are again often in the position to reoffend with again only those who commit the most serious of offences under lock and key until trial. Perhaps this is the point - those in charge don't see chucking as such a major issue?
Asia Cup 2012 guru
SA vs Oz 2011 combined guru
SA vs Bangladesh Tests guru
NZ vs WI Tests guru
2014 French Open guru
T20 Blast 2014 guru
India vs WI ODIs 2014 guru
2016 French Open guru
2016 Wimbledon guru
2016 RL50 Cup guru
Premier League Final Placings Prediction League 2016/7 guru
England v SA ODIs 2017 guru
Guru.

D/L wrote:Words fail me for once.


17/04/17 - 'The day that history was made'

20/04/17 - Better than Bolt.
User avatar
braveneutral
 
Posts: 20726
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:22 pm
Location: In between the hemispheres
Team(s) Supported: Northants amongst others.

I suppose.

At times.

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

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:08 pm

What are the precedents for punishing a team for not observing the spirit of the game, when the offence hasn't previously been quantified? Not walking? Over appealing? Time wasting? Though even these are known transgressions in a way Yorkshire's wasn't, because they could argue they didn't know for certain KW was throwing until the teasting...

An apology from Yorks would be nice.

Ethically, Yorks should never have bowled him at any time.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80419
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.

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

Postby sussexpob » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:12 pm

I have found an interesting rule in the ECB code of conduct for 2014 CC game playing conditions.

It says....... with specific regards to the rule 42.1 and fair play.....

For all other matches when Match Referees have not been appointed, the ECB Cricket Department, with the approval of the Chairman of Cricket Committee or the ECB Chief Executive, will have the authority to appoint a two-man panel to conduct a post match ‘hearing’. (The two-man Panel to consist of at least one appointed Match Referee with the Head of Operations (First-Class Cricket) and the Umpires Manager able to serve on the Panel). With no Match Referee appointed prior to the start of the match there will be no provision for a formal warning to be issued.
If in any match the conduct of one or both teams is found to have been unacceptable, then any points gained by the team(s) in the match (or matches if there was a cross-competition agreement) will be declared to be null and void.



It says a match referee is only appointed basically in a match where someone can win something, so all these games wouldn't have had a match referee.

Clearly any breach of Law 42 and the spirit of cricket can result in all matches being given 0 points to Yorkshire.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

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

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:16 pm

If the governing body allowed him to bowl, how likely is it that the governing body would punish a team for doing what they allowed?

Change the procedure for next time if it is unsatisfactory.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80419
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.

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

Postby SaintPowelly » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:16 pm

Shouldn't the ECB of warned Yorkshire BEFORE hand though ??
Bang-NZ ODI prediction guru
India vs Oz ODI fantasy league 2013
SA-WI Tests fantasy league 2015
Sheffield Shield fantasy league 2014-2015
SaintPowelly
 
Posts: 18527
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 pm
Team(s) Supported: Hampshire Cricket, Southampton Football

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

Postby sussexpob » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:17 pm

Arthur Crabtree wrote:What are the precedents for punishing a team for not observing the spirit of the game, when the offence hasn't previously been quantified? Not walking? Over appealing? Time wasting? Though even these are known transgressions in a way Yorkshire's wasn't, because they could argue they didn't know for certain KW was throwing until the teasting...

An apology from Yorks would be nice.

Ethically, Yorks should never have bowled him at any time.


See below. And as I said, ethics is part of the spirit of the game as per the legal understanding of "sharp practices".....
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

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

Postby sussexpob » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:17 pm

SaintPowelly wrote:Shouldn't the ECB of warned Yorkshire BEFORE hand though ??


With no Match Referee appointed prior to the start of the match there will be no provision for a formal warning to be issued.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

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

Postby SaintPowelly » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:19 pm

We all know there is a 0% chance of them being deducted, although would be interesting if a smaller D2 team would be.
Bang-NZ ODI prediction guru
India vs Oz ODI fantasy league 2013
SA-WI Tests fantasy league 2015
Sheffield Shield fantasy league 2014-2015
SaintPowelly
 
Posts: 18527
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 pm
Team(s) Supported: Hampshire Cricket, Southampton Football

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

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:19 pm

I feel sympathetic towards WI in that they had bowlers who had outlawed deliveries in their series with NZ, yet Williamson was allowed to bowl, and took wickets.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80419
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.

PreviousNext

Return to International Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sussexpob and 20 guests