The Jadeja Anderson Spat

[Red Devil]

Civil court cases are routinely decided on the balance of probability. In those cases, for things like medical negligence, millions of pounds can be levied as compensation.

For the ICC lawyer to turn round and say that losing two matches worth of earnings created a level of evidential proof and certainty "closer to that which is beyond all reasonable doubt" is quite incredible, and really does show the natural inclination to bury this case in England's favour.

So Anderson admits to using unsavoury language and telling him to "f**k off to the dressing room" while pushing him. We have film, twice in the series in fact, of Anderson continuing his verbal assaults, and an umpire testimony that said Anderson ignored his warning to stop. We have an admission, or silence, on a whole host of insulting and aggressive language. We have a seeming admission from the ECB that he had committed an offence before India levelled the charge, but only decided to argue it when a ban was on the cards. We have an English team member who says Jadeja was bat spinning aggressively but didn't notice a push, and another at the same time who had a great view of a push from Jadeja at the same time but no bat waving aggressively. We also have the player in question admitting he wasn't acting in the "spirit of the game" and yet innocent because he was protecting himself, yet his victim apparently turning round in too aggressive a way to be pushed, and then told to f**k off while being told he would have his teeth smashed, is guilty of not acting in the spirit of the game. So its

So in short, if someone pushes you and told you they were going to smash your face in, be aware that they are able to do that in self defence if you turn too quickly to ask them to stop calling you a "f**king *modded*", and sadly that having a bat in your hand after leaving the crease will be construed as wanton acts of violence, and not a simplistic view that you have just been bloody batting.

Sorry, but this absolutely stinks.

excellent summation

[SaintPowelly]

I personally think that if Anderson thinks that shoving someone that is carrying a bat is a wise idea, he needs to undergo psychological testing.

As someone that has suffered from a fractured skull ( not cricket bat related ), I can assure him its not fun.

[Slipstream]

I don't think the pushing was the big issue. Abusive language on the field should have been stopped by the umpire. Don't think it is necessary to swear when sledging. Anderson should have been charged for abusive language on and off the field and he admitted he was guilty of that. How can he not be charged? For some reason what Jadeja said back was not reported. Probably much the same as Anderson and if so both should have been charged.

Fom what I have read when it came to the pushing there were so many versions with Jadeja changing his story. It seems the Indians didn't agree amongst themselves either. The push was necessary for the likely 4 match ban but with about 8 different stories pretty hard to know what really happened. What a waste of £250,000.

I think Anderson should forget about sledging altogether and just get on with bowling. He should also apologise to Dhoni and Jadeja for his behaviour.

[alfie]

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.

Remind me again : what action did ECB take re Monty and his ...indiscretion ? Ah , that's right , they didn't. Not that he could have been "dropped" - because he wasn't in the team at the time.

Never let the facts get in the way of a convenient story...

[alfie]

I don't think the pushing was the big issue. Abusive language on the field should have been stopped by the umpire. Don't think it is necessary to swear when sledging. Anderson should have been charged for abusive language on and off the field and he admitted he was guilty of that. How can he not be charged? For some reason what Jadeja said back was not reported. Probably much the same as Anderson and if so both should have been charged.

Fom what I have read when it came to the pushing there were so many versions with Jadeja changing his story. It seems the Indians didn't agree amongst themselves either. The push was necessary for the likely 4 match ban but with about 8 different stories pretty hard to know what really happened. What a waste of £250,000.

I think Anderson should forget about sledging altogether and just get on with bowling. He should also apologise to Dhoni and Jadeja for his behaviour.

Best summary of the whole wretched affair I've read on here

[Gingerfinch]

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

Peeing on a bouncer is pretty disgusting. Peeing on a pitch after a days play is stupid. I know what's worse.

[D/L]

...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?!

And there was I thinking that it was the ICC who are responsible for discipline during test matches when, clearly, it is the ECB who decide who may be charged and with what and, in this instance, have let Anderson off Scot free.

[D/L]

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....

Yet more speculation as to what may have happened. It seems that Kohli was rightly fined. Pity should be reserved for people who cannot see both sides of a story.

[D/L]

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?

The criticism was of both players for getting involved in the incident. Was that so difficult to comprehend? The Aussies saw no mitigation in Warner's case, whereas It would seem that the ECB did. Is that also so difficult to comprehend? Comprehension, perhaps, goes out of the window when blind partisanship kicks in.

[D/L]

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.

That has to be an even more ridiculous comparison than the Anderson/Warner one.

[Making_Splinters]

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....

Yet more speculation as to what may have happened. It seems that Kohli was rightly fined. Pity should be reserved for people who cannot see both sides of a story.

The main reason for Anderson "getting away" with it was the lack of evidence. When combined with Jadeja becoming an increasingly unreliable witness with his ever more embellished version of events, as noted in the in depth explanation of the verdict, it is easy to understand why the case was thrown out.

There are no similarities with the Khohli incident, where there was clear evidence that he did do it.

Had India not tried to ham up the entire event again and again then Anderson's version of events, and the testimony of the England players would have been called in to question.

[D/L]

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.

If the Aussies thought there were any mitigating circumstances, they would have used them in Warner's defence.

There is no illogicality in that unlike, in your attempt to follow logic, your conclusion that I believed that the existence, or not, of a defence, determines whether someone is innocent or guilty. If you follow logic, try to follow it properly and not get diverted into la-la land.

The Indian set-up, of course, has a perfect moral compass.

[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?!

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.

Remind me again : what action did ECB take re Monty and his ...indiscretion ? Ah , that's right , they didn't. Not that he could have been "dropped" - because he wasn't in the team at the time.

Never let the facts get in the way of a convenient story...

www.espncricinfo.com/page2/content/story/655929.html

www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/con ... 63223.html

You seem to have a very different definition of a "fact" as compared to the rest of the world, alfie. Which dictionary do you use?

[SaintPowelly]

Probably time to leave this now, a verdict has been reached ( rightly or wrongly ), the players involved will move on, so should we.

[shankycricket]

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

Peeing on a bouncer is pretty disgusting. Peeing on a pitch after a days play is stupid. I know what's worse.

I clearly said "in cricketing terms". How does it matter to the ECB what players do in their personal lives outside of the cricket field? As opposed to peeing on an ECB accredited ground where they regularly host international matches?