Bangladesh v England ODI Series 7th - 12th Oct

[Dr Cricket]

Just reading the Anderson/Jadeja spat on this forum.
really 2 differing views from English or indian fans, The views got so heated that the thread got locked.
Which again reinforces my views that ICC don't treat Sledging/Aggression properly enough.

[Making_Splinters]

Here we go again, England get away with everything, the poor opposition get punished for everything. As I seem to have to point out every time, you'll find that if you actually look back over the history and precedents of the game this simply isn't true. What a surprise the players that instigated and provoked a player get a harsher sanction than the reacting player. How unfair, oh wait up that makes perfect sense, and is generally the way situations are handled by the ICC regardless of the players involved. Maybe, just maybe, England are very good at knowing when they are approaching the line and stop. Let's look back to the Pakistan series this summer when players crossed the line, Hales with his trip to the umpires and Anderson running on the pitch both get a sanction.

If anything, in the Indian series, there was a lighter sanction for running on the pitch. That can't be surely.

[Dr Cricket]

Didn't Anderson get away with it this summer.
Also shouldn't Anderson technically get a harsher sentence in 2014 if players that instigated and provoked a player.

[Making_Splinters]

As I always seem to say, could you provide an example of when other players did the same, note the word same, as Buttler and ended up with a different sanction.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Anderson wasn't fined for running on the pitch. He apologised for how he spoke to the umpires. But he wasn't fined for anything.

Hales was fined. Pakistan were fined for slow over rates.

[Dr Cricket]

Here we go again, England get away with everything, the poor opposition get punished for everything. As I seem to have to point out every time, you'll find that if you actually look back over the history and precedents of the game this simply isn't true. What a surprise the players that instigated and provoked a player get a harsher sanction than the reacting player. How unfair, oh wait up that makes perfect sense, and is generally the way situations are handled by the ICC regardless of the players involved. Maybe, just maybe, England are very good at knowing when they are approaching the line and stop. Let's look back to the Pakistan series this summer when players crossed the line, Hales with his trip to the umpires and Anderson running on the pitch both get a sanction.

If anything, in the Indian series, there was a lighter sanction for running on the pitch. That can't be surely.

already said in the india thread that Jadeja should get a harsher sentence for it, if that was a dig at me.

Anyway surely all this back up my point that ICC are not dealing with Sledging and Aggression properly if they were then they wouldn't always be controversy of the punishment or the lack of punishment or not all the players getting the same punishment.

And if you read my post above all I asked for was that the punishment is the same throughout and that ICC clarifies what is allowed and what is not allowed in Sledging/aggression.

The way ICC are dealing with it is not helping the situation.

[yuppie]

Maybe other teams don't rise to the provocation from the English players?

Provocation is not an excuse.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not sure the core of this discussion was about the lighter punishments received by the England players in relationship to BD. It was mostly about:

The England players being arses.
Everyone else apart from NZ being arses as well.
And the ICC being arses.

[Dr Cricket]

As I always seem to say, could you provide an example of when other players did the same, note the word same, as Buttler and ended up with a different sanction.

TBH the fact we are even discussing this is prove that ICC is not dealing with it properly.

if ICC were giving punishment properly or fairly, people wouldn't even be discussing if the sanction are appropriate or fair.

It is about time ICC started being uniform and started following the rules in all series and not in some.

Seen something like Stokes and Tamim iqbal affair in the 2nd odi being fined or getting sanction but for some reason Match referee didn't take action and also thought Mahmudulah was the one charging at Buttler, well he was the one going toward butter and he got away with it.

Anyway this is all pointless looking at the past.
All I would say to people are you happy with the way ICC regulates it rules and the way it deals with Sledging/Aggression.
Yes or No.

for me this is a No, it is about time ICC starts regulating sledging and Aggression and start acting on it in all cases and actually put down what is acceptable and what is not and if you break the rules then you get punished.
ICC have been lenient for too long and it is getting out of hand right now.

You really have to look at the jadeja/Anderson case to see how ridiculous the process is.

Think Sussex summed it up nicely.

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.

And if you look at the history ICC haven't exactly dealt with thing properly.
the deness affair, Monkeygate, Slapgate and the you even have instances of Broad throwing a ball at a batman for no reason and getting no fine.
you could probably think of loads of incidents where ICC haven't dealt things properly.

TBH sick of it, ICC should fine all the player found to be guilty or non at all, not sure how Buttler was found not to deserve a fine but the other two did or how Stokes, Tamim Iqbal and Mahmudullah didn't get punished either.

[Dr Cricket]

Not sure the core of this discussion was about the lighter punishments received by the England players in relationship to BD. It was mostly about:

The England players being arses.
Everyone else apart from NZ being arses as well.
And the ICC being arses.

Not at any point did I say today that the england players got off lightly and all I said was all the guilty players should get the same punishment or none at all.
Anyway let see if the new punishment system works, but at the moment think it will only work if the Match referees have a clear guideline in what is acceptable and what is not.

[Dr Cricket]

Not sure the core of this discussion was about the lighter punishments received by the England players in relationship to BD. It was mostly about:

The England players being arses.
Everyone else apart from NZ being arses as well.
And the ICC being arses.

Not at any point did I say today that the england players got off lightly and all I said was all the guilty players should get the same punishment or none at all.
Anyway let see if the new punishment system works, but at the moment think it will only work if the Match referees have a clear guideline in what is acceptable and what is not.

Actually looking at my post today, most of my attacks were based at ICC.

[budgetmeansbudget]

I really think provocation is a poor excuse. These people are adults, if we all reacted against provocation then there would be a lot more fighting going on in this world.

Provocation is the excuse a child uses in justifying their actions.

You have to consider that it is magnified in the heat of a game, heart pumping, adrenaline flowing. Plus we all act differently, some people are more easily wound up than others.

But if provocation is a poor excuse what is the Bangladesh players excuse for instigating the provocation, because no one on here has said a bad word about their actions?

If the umpire gives you out, the simple thing to do is just walk to the changing rooms. I'm not sure it really matters how much the opposition celebrates your wicket. You've been given out, you don't need to hang around. your contribution to the match is over. Yes your upset with the dismissal, and your own performance, but going up and having a go at the opposition for their celebrations is not going to help anything.

Agreed, you should under normal circumstances just walk off the pitch without batting an eyelid.

But the opposition are in your face telling you to feck off back to the pavilion, it takes a cool customer, in the heat of battle, not to react. Borderline automaton!

[sussexpob]

Agreed, you should under normal circumstances just walk off the pitch without batting an eyelid.

But the opposition are in your face telling you to feck off back to the pavilion, it takes a cool customer, in the heat of battle, not to react. Borderline automaton!

Having played rugby at a good level, and played club cricket and sunday league football, its amazing how your behaviour changes to suit the perceived environment you are in. When I played rugby, at no stage did I ever argue with a ref. In fact, I always approached refs with an overt level of respect, regardless of the situation and what was on the line on the pitch.

I have been sent off three times playing sunday league, two of which self-induced involvement with referees. Never even got a yellow card in a rugby game......

ITs interesting how natural reactions differ in the same people depending on what sport they are playing. Id be more akin to suggesting that rather than being natural, there is more control present then people give credit for, and sadly cricket is being subjected to spoilt brat culture in the modern era.

[sussexpob]

As for the arguments about double standards, as Arthur said, I am not sure this was really central to the point.

There is no point banging on about who did what. The problem is people from all countries are behaving poorly, so its time the ICC started actually banning people to stop it.

[Dr Cricket]

As for the arguments about double standards, as Arthur said, I am not sure this was really central to the point.

There is no point banging on about who did what. The problem is people from all countries are behaving poorly, so its time the ICC started actually banning people to stop it.