The Jadeja Anderson Spat

[hopeforthebest]

Dave Richardson the ICC CEO has been put between a rock and a hard place as the BCCI ask him to appeal the Anderson verdict. If he refuses his job at risk, if agrees his job is at less risk. Good luck to him.

[Dr Cricket]

Dave Richardson the ICC CEO has been put between a rock and a hard place as the BCCI ask him to appeal the Anderson verdict. If he refuses his job at risk, if agrees his job is at less risk. Good luck to him.

Can't believe Gordon Lewis didn't see this happening, instead of worrying about Anderson and Jadeja pay he should have taken into account the fall out from the verdict.

If we saw both players charged from a level 1 offence, I doubt we would be seeing these scenes right now.

[ddb]

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

We can come back to this once the BCCI push through an appeal. Let's talk about cricket!

[Aidan11]

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

We can come back to this once the BCCI push through an appeal. Let's talk about cricket!

Agreed.

[Making_Splinters]

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

We can come back to this once the BCCI push through an appeal. Let's talk about cricket!

Agreed.

The BCCI can't appeal, only the ICC can appeal.

[Arthur Crabtree]

They are appealing according to cricinfo! But yes.

[hopeforthebest]

Should Richardson agree to the appeal and Anderson's found guilty he could then appeal to the court of sport arbitration in Geneva. So this go on until Christmas.

[Gingerfinch]

So the BCCI have asked the ICC to appeal. Blimey!

[Arthur Crabtree]

In the Guardian, they are saying India are expressing their lack of faith in decision, but recognise they have no right to appeal.

[Dr Cricket]

In the Guardian, they are saying India are expressing their lack of faith in decision, but recognise they have no right to appeal.

Even if ICC don't appeal BCCI would get what they wanted.
If ICC don't appeal, it is pretty much guaranteed BCCI would just leak information anyway.
I said so many times that all parties will be embarrassed here.

BCCI for dragging the matter.
ICC for their pathetic decision and showing more evidence their are not fit for purpose.
ECB for backing Anderson and playing down the matter.
Anderson for what he supposedly said and did.

I still can't believe Gordon Lewis didn't see this happening, If he fined both players none of this would have happened.

[Dilbert]

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.

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.

Interesting to see that the first part was speculation whereas in the second situation becomes a “fact”. Talk about comprehending ones own thoughts.

[D/L]

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.

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.

Interesting to see that the first part was speculation whereas in the second situation becomes a “fact”. Talk about comprehending ones own thoughts.

As it should have been obvious, the first comment was on the speculation over the Anderson incident. The second was about the Aussies' reaction to the Warner incident, a matter of public record.

I know it may be difficult, but do try to comprehend the difference.

[Dilbert]

So the point that Anderson should have been fined or ECB should have taken action on him based on his own admission that he swore and pushed is speculation?

And your assumption that Aussies didnt think there were any mitigating circumstances when they easily could have done what Eng did - get team mates to lie, accuse Root of instigating etc. isnt speculation?

Ok, if you say so

[KipperJohn]

Nice to see the spirit of cricket is alive and well.....

Kipper must be turning in his grave.

[D/L]

So the point that Anderson should have been fined or ECB should have taken action on him based on his own admission that he swore and pushed is speculation?

No. Your ability to comprehend seems to have failed you yet again. What was described as speculation quite clearly referred to what people were saying happened in the corridor.

And your assumption that Aussies didnt think there were any mitigating circumstances when they easily could have done what Eng did - get team mates to lie, accuse Root of instigating etc. isnt speculation?...

It's quite reasonable to assume that the Aussies, had there been any mitigating circumstances, would not have banned Warner almost immediately. Why would the Aussies have concocted a defence when no credible one was available to them and when the risk of it unravelling would be too great to take, particularly as this was a far more serious incident than the spat between Anderson and Jadeja? By the same token, it's reasonable to assume that Anderson did have a credible defence and the ECB were willing to put it to the test.

This really does feel like

However, feel free to continue to misunderstand and employ strange logic in your apparent blindness to the possibility that both players in the handbags in the corridor incident were equally, or almost equally guilty.