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

by **Arthur Crabtree** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:26 pm

It doesn't matter whether or not there is a match ref. There are rules that govern whether Williamson could bowl on waiting for his test. Senanayake bowled for SL after being sent for testing. Even the ethical issue is only opinion. Williamson was allowed to bowl. Wrongly in my view. And even if the ECB allowed him to bowl, Yorks still could have decided not to. And declined the right to bowl him. But that was their decision.

I hope Yorks didn't go into the game intending to not bowl him, and then changed their minds when they needed a wicket. I've got a feeling he broke a big stand against Warks.

by **SaintPowelly** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:29 pm

Arthur Crabtree wrote: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.

Why ? Williamson hadn't been called at that point.

by **Arthur Crabtree** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:34 pm

But he was in that series. He was allowed to bowl in that series even though judged to be throwing in that series.

by **sussexpob** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:38 pm

Arthur Crabtree wrote:It doesn't matter whether or not there is a match ref. There are rules that govern whether Williamson could bowl on waiting for his test. Senanayake bowled for SL after being sent for testing. Even the ethical issue is only opinion. Williamson was allowed to bowl. Wrongly in my view. And even if the ECB allowed him to bowl, Yorks still could have decided not to. And declined the right to bowl him. But that was their decision.

I hope Yorks didn't go into the game intending to not bowl him, and then changed their minds when they needed a wicket. I've got a feeling he broke a big stand against Warks.

1. Where does the ICC rules over-ride the ECB ones? It might do, but can we technically be sure.
2. Did the ECB ever state he was able to bowl and express such a ruling?

by **Arthur Crabtree** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:40 pm

Seeing as how the ECB hasn't indicated that there was anything wrong with KW bowling up until his test, it seems reasonable to assume that they allowed it, either actually, or by implication.

by **Alviro Patterson** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:06 pm

SaintPowelly wrote:We all know there is a 0% chance of them being deducted, although would be interesting if a smaller D2 team would be.

That team being Worcestershire?

by **SaintPowelly** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:10 pm

Alviro Patterson wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:We all know there is a 0% chance of them being deducted, although would be interesting if a smaller D2 team would be.

That team being Worcestershire?

If Ajmal was actually called on it, I wouldn't be shocked if they were deducted.

by **SaintPowelly** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:11 pm

If they bowled him AFTER he had been called, I mean.

by **hopeforthebest** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:18 pm

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Seeing as how the ECB hasn't indicated that there was anything wrong with KW bowling up until his test, it seems reasonable to assume that they allowed it, either actually, or by implication.

I don't believe the ECB could intervene until the banning even if they wanted to but so far they haven't acted since his ban as I believe they should.

by **Arthur Crabtree** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:33 pm

If they had no means of judging Yorkshire's actions at the time, then they they can't have the that power now. What that scenario suggests is that it was Yorkshire's decision to make.

by **Arthur Crabtree** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:36 pm

Anyway, I basically don't see how if it wasn't against the rules to do as Yorkshire did, how they can be punished for it. But I'm going round for the second time, so I'll shut up.

by **hopeforthebest** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:56 pm

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Anyway, I basically don't see how if it wasn't against the rules to do as Yorkshire did, how they can be punished for it. But I'm going round for the second time, so I'll shut up.

I entirely agree AC, there's no earthly reason why they should or could be punished.

by **braveneutral** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:16 pm

As above.

by **D/L** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:18 am

sussexpob wrote: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?

All sorts of throwing cause problems in cricket...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/m ... ussex-kent

by **sussexpob** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:29 pm

D/L wrote:
sussexpob wrote: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?

All sorts of throwing cause problems in cricket...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/m ... ussex-kent

Not sure how Sussex could be seen to benefit from someone running themselves out, or intentional bowling wides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is online