The Jadeja Anderson Spat

[D/L]

Which, again, is just your opinion.

That the Aussies gave no support to Warner is a recorded fact. Is that so difficult to understand and the conclusions that may be drawn from it?

Perhaps, for some, it is.

[Dilbert]

Which, again, is just your opinion.

That the Aussies gave no support to Warner is a recorded fact. Is that so difficult to understand and the conclusions that may be drawn from it?

Perhaps, for some, it is.

Had the Aussies thought they could plead something in mitigation, they would have done so instead of immediately banning Warner.

You believe that just because Eng supported Andersons bad behaviour, Aussies would have done the same if they could have gotten away with it.
Or that Andersons bullying and thuggery is not similar to Warners.
That is just your opinion

How you conviniently decide that some things are obvious and others hearsay or whatever based on your bias, it is indeed difficult to comprehend.

[D/L]

Which, again, is just your opinion.

That the Aussies gave no support to Warner is a recorded fact. Is that so difficult to understand and the conclusions that may be drawn from it?

Perhaps, for some, it is.

Had the Aussies thought they could plead something in mitigation, they would have done so instead of immediately banning Warner.

You believe that just because Eng supported Andersons bad behaviour, Aussies would have done the same if they could have gotten away with it.
Or that Andersons bullying and thuggery is not similar to Warners.
That is just your opinion

How you conviniently decide that some things are obvious and others hearsay or whatever based on your bias, it is indeed difficult to comprehend.

There is no bias. I have criticised both sides. The conclusion formed from the Warner issue, based entirely upon the public record of how the Aussie authorities reacted to it (i.e. they banned him straight away) and not on opinion, could hardly have been explained more clearly.

Difficulty in comprehension is sometimes entirely down to the person attempting it.

[SaintPowelly]

Can the ICC intervene on the Warner case ?? It happened in a night club, which makes it a criminal matter, whereas Anderson/Jadeja happened in a cricket stadium.

[D/L]

Can the ICC intervene on the Warner case ?? It happened in a night club, which makes it a criminal matter, whereas Anderson/Jadeja happened in a cricket stadium.

I don't know, but the relevance of that seems about the same as that of the comparison. The Aussies' speedy response to the incident strongly suggested that Warner was as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo and that there were not the mitigating circumstances claimed by both sides in the handbags in the corridor case.

[shankycricket]

The major difference between the Warner-Root incident and this is that the former, as St_P rightly pointed out, is outside the purview of the ICC's authority. So the insinuation that Aus wouldn't have banned Warner if they knew he could've "gotten away with it" is frankly laughable. They acted because they thought he had crossed a line and that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of a cricketer. Ever since that ban, Warner hasn't been involved in any controversies, has managed to stay focused on his cricket and has become a world class opener. Sometimes, sending out a message when a line has been crossed is not the worst thing. Of course, when it comes to the ECB, this standard applies only to certain players. Panesar was dropped for pissing on nightclub bouncers (rightly so) but a player acting in contravention to the laws of the game and having admitted to commiting an offence that would tantamount to a Level 3 charge has managed to get off scot free. Guess you shouldn't expect anything else from those bunch of hypocritic clowns.
I wonder how they would've reacted if it was KP who had done this. Maybe charge him with attempt to murder and get arrested?!

[shankycricket]

Pushing. But in response to Sir J's aggression. So in self defence. Of course, Jadeja's alleged aggression would have been provoked by Jimmy's offer to break his teeth/etc...

Important to know the nature of Jadeja's "aggression" here. Did he push Anderson, as alleged by Stokes? If thats the case, both of them should have been banned. If his "aggression" was only to stare back at Anderson angrily, as Dhoni seemed to be suggesting, then of course Anderson is the primary guilty here. The fact that various English players and their board have offered various versions of this story whereas Dhoni has remained consistent is probably a pointer as to who the more credible party is. Any road up, it is astonishing that a player can openly admit to pushing another player and get away with it, whether provoked or unprovoked, there should be no place for physical contact in cricket. Even if he hadn't pushed Jadeja, the fact that he managed to get away without even a fine for the swear words that he used is a disgrace. How Jadeja responded to that is irrelevant, no one is saying he's entirely innocent or that he shouldn't be punished. One can only pity the deluded souls who think an Indian player would've gotten away with this. Kohli was fined in Australia on the last tour for showing a finger to the crowd....

[Arthur Crabtree]

Unfortunately, that's never going to be known (the nature of Jadeja's response). There's no reason for either side to change their story now.

India's dismay over the lack of CCTV maybe backs up their expectation that it would support them.

For me, Anderson's abuse justifies/excuses a similar verbal response from Jadeja (should there have been one), but that (theoretical) response doesn't excuse the push. It's a shame that England seem to bring so much bad feeling to their series, and their coach offers no guidance or hope of change.

[Dilbert]

There is no bias. I have criticised both sides. The conclusion formed from the Warner issue, based entirely upon the public record of how the Aussie authorities reacted to it (i.e. they banned him straight away) and not on opinion, could hardly have been explained more clearly.

Difficulty in comprehension is sometimes entirely down to the person attempting it.

Umm, referring to this incident as "handbags", "hearsay", stories printed on websites as "not credible" is not criticism. Atleast i can't comprehend the criticism in those statements you made.
The comparison is the boards attitude towards their player, not the exact incident itself. Aus acted immediately, their coach didn't defend their player, their board didn't accuse Root of provoking, didn't brush the incident as "minor". They also didn't accuse Eng of provoking (one of) their best players so he would react angrily and get banned. How hard is this to comprehend?

[Dilbert]

The major difference between the Warner-Root incident and this is that the former, as St_P rightly pointed out, is outside the purview of the ICC's authority. So the insinuation that Aus wouldn't have banned Warner if they knew he could've "gotten away with it" is frankly laughable. They acted because they thought he had crossed a line and that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of a cricketer. Ever since that ban, Warner hasn't been involved in any controversies, has managed to stay focused on his cricket and has become a world class opener. Sometimes, sending out a message when a line has been crossed is not the worst thing. Of course, when it comes to the ECB, this standard applies only to certain players. Panesar was dropped for pissing on nightclub bouncers (rightly so) but a player acting in contravention to the laws of the game and having admitted to commiting an offence that would tantamount to a Level 3 charge has managed to get off scot free. Guess you shouldn't expect anything else from those bunch of hypocritic clowns.
I wonder how they would've reacted if it was KP who had done this. Maybe charge him with attempt to murder and get arrested?!

The interesting point is that when Monty pissed on a bouncer OUTSIDE a cricket field, ECB thought it appropriate to take action. But when Prior, Cook et al pissed on the wicket after last years Ashes, no action was taken. They clearly have their favourites and not so favourites.

[Gingerfinch]

The major difference between the Warner-Root incident and this is that the former, as St_P rightly pointed out, is outside the purview of the ICC's authority. So the insinuation that Aus wouldn't have banned Warner if they knew he could've "gotten away with it" is frankly laughable. They acted because they thought he had crossed a line and that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of a cricketer. Ever since that ban, Warner hasn't been involved in any controversies, has managed to stay focused on his cricket and has become a world class opener. Sometimes, sending out a message when a line has been crossed is not the worst thing. Of course, when it comes to the ECB, this standard applies only to certain players. Panesar was dropped for pissing on nightclub bouncers (rightly so) but a player acting in contravention to the laws of the game and having admitted to commiting an offence that would tantamount to a Level 3 charge has managed to get off scot free. Guess you shouldn't expect anything else from those bunch of hypocritic clowns.
I wonder how they would've reacted if it was KP who had done this. Maybe charge him with attempt to murder and get arrested?!

The interesting point is that when Monty pissed on a bouncer OUTSIDE a cricket field, ECB thought it appropriate to take action. But when Prior, Cook et al pissed on the wicket after last years Ashes, no action was taken. They clearly have their favourites and not so favourites.

Again, I'm guessing, but I would like to think Prior, Cook, Broad, even jimmy would have been reprimanded had they pis.ed on a bouncer. I'm not trying to take sides, but there is a clear difference.

[hopeforthebest]

The major difference between the Warner-Root incident and this is that the former, as St_P rightly pointed out, is outside the purview of the ICC's authority. So the insinuation that Aus wouldn't have banned Warner if they knew he could've "gotten away with it" is frankly laughable. They acted because they thought he had crossed a line and that such behaviour was unacceptable and unbecoming of a cricketer. Ever since that ban, Warner hasn't been involved in any controversies, has managed to stay focused on his cricket and has become a world class opener. Sometimes, sending out a message when a line has been crossed is not the worst thing. Of course, when it comes to the ECB, this standard applies only to certain players. Panesar was dropped for pissing on nightclub bouncers (rightly so) but a player acting in contravention to the laws of the game and having admitted to commiting an offence that would tantamount to a Level 3 charge has managed to get off scot free. Guess you shouldn't expect anything else from those bunch of hypocritic clowns.
I wonder how they would've reacted if it was KP who had done this. Maybe charge him with attempt to murder and get arrested?!

The interesting point is that when Monty pissed on a bouncer OUTSIDE a cricket field, ECB thought it appropriate to take action. But when Prior, Cook et al pissed on the wicket after last years Ashes, no action was taken. They clearly have their favourites and not so favourites.

It was his county Sussex who took action the ECB were not involved until Monty was given psychological support by them and then picked for the ashes squad.

[shankycricket]

So pissing on bouncers at a nightclub is a bigger offence in cricketing terms than pissing on a cricket pitch?

[Red Devil]

There is no bias. I have criticised both sides. The conclusion formed from the Warner issue, based entirely upon the public record of how the Aussie authorities reacted to it (i.e. they banned him straight away) and not on opinion, could hardly have been explained more clearly.

Difficulty in comprehension is sometimes entirely down to the person attempting it.

Umm, referring to this incident as "handbags", "hearsay", stories printed on websites as "not credible" is not criticism. Atleast i can't comprehend the criticism in those statements you made.
The comparison is the boards attitude towards their player, not the exact incident itself. Aus acted immediately, their coach didn't defend their player, their board didn't accuse Root of provoking, didn't brush the incident as "minor". They also didn't accuse Eng of provoking (one of) their best players so he would react angrily and get banned. How hard is this to comprehend?

Exactly. Aus also had the option of putting some of their players up to state that a) nothing had happened, followed by b) counter claiming that it was really root who was the aggressor and then c) levelling charges against Root. However, Aus had a little more integrity and acted appropriately.

Following D/L's logic - any player that is defended by his team did nothing wrong and anyone not defended was guilty - very warped as it would then also mean that Suarez did nothing wrong since his whole country supported him!

Eng management are still insisting that they don't want Anderson to change his behaviour because there's nothing wrong with it - even though Anderson himself has admitted his behavior is against the spirit of the cricket. That doesn't show he's innocent, it shows the warped moral compass of the Eng set-up.

[Red Devil]

Unfortunately, that's never going to be known (the nature of Jadeja's response). There's no reason for either side to change their story now.

India's dismay over the lack of CCTV maybe backs up their expectation that it would support them.

For me, Anderson's abuse justifies/excuses a similar verbal response from Jadeja (should there have been one), but that (theoretical) response doesn't excuse the push. It's a shame that England seem to bring so much bad feeling to their series, and their coach offers no guidance or hope of change.