Big AB is not happy with Afridi's pissweak punishment ... well who the hell is? Two T20s? Big fat hairy deal. I'm not condoning the pitch invasion or the rugby tackle (although it was high on the humour factor), but how is it right that this guy gets a lifetime ban while Afridi, who was clearly trying to damage the ball, gets a ban from only two T20s?
Seems slightly disproportionate, no?
The PCB say they are happy for the ICC to deal with the pitch invasion, which is probably because, if they insisted on getting high handed about it themselves, they risk a certain other cricketing board insisting on a harder punishment for Afridi. This, of course, only goes to show that the PCB have had fuck all dealings with Cricket Australia. But let them continue with their shut up and say nothing attitude.
As for Border's thoughts on the ban? He may be an ex-captain, and saviour of the Aussies after the dry years of the 1980s (and Kim Hughes), but these days he's just an ex-selector with lots of opinions. We love you, AB, but ain't nobody gonna listen to you.
12 thoughts on this post:
Mmmm... I dunno Sid. The rugby tackle did have the possibility of destroying someone's career, (such as it was) as opposed to Afridi's (supposed) outcome: the faint possibility of maybe helping his team not lose a match by quite as much and if they were really lucky psych them up enough to conceive of the mental possibility that they could theoretically win a game. Hypothetically.
Alternatively, Afridi is actually loopy and there's no point punishing him OR as someone said (Wes?) he actually just wanted to put paid to the whole notion of trying to make him captain ever again. Which is actually my current, favourite theory, and the one with the most sense in it.
Anyway, as per all the commentary, tackling players should be severely discouraged. Chewing balls in a dead rubber when you're down 4-0 and the reality is other teams have admitted to ball tampering... (why *is* no-one talking about the Poms and their lollies here?) well, if you're happy to be the comic relief of the cricket world, c'est la vie.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's cheating, but I also think what the Poms did was probly cheating, and if that's the case, what about the whole shining-the-ball process? Where is the line, and if you pick a line, how do you enforce it?
I am not in any way defending the rugby tackler, who as it turns out is a west aussie btw, but I do think Afridi deserved more of a ban. Perhaps the tackle was worse than the blatant cheating, as it was physical rather than moral - fair enough. I still think it was a pissweak punishment.
What Broad did was definitely cheating - he just did it in a way that was much less obvious. Have you seen pics of his spikes being dug into the ball? He was definitely tampering but got away with it.
Incidentally, pop over to Stani Army - he is definitely talking about the Poms.
Well somethings that always happen:
- Pakistani got tackled but hell with it, they don't care much so the world. But if that was an Aussie tackled in WACA by anyone or a Pakistani or worse in Pakistan somewhere all the hell would have been dawned on him and the board and Pakistan, do I sound racist? No but that's true.
- Afridi did something really foolish and deserve punishment 2 T20 or 3 or even more whatever but a Punishment is must and by the way it was according to Law so he got the right punishment, but hey there are some soccer lovers getting away with even a reporting of possible changing of balls condition trying to play football with it, bloody Poms. What was world doing then? Sleeping?
It was according to the law - a maximum punishment, so my complaint is with the law. It isn't strong enough.
And bear in mind that we haven't exactly forgotten Broad ...
Sid
Come on, you're being a bit unfair.
I think the Afridi ball biting punishment and the lifetime ban for the tackle is a bad comparison to make. And if you found the tackle funny, then surely what Afridi did was hilarious?
Also, I don't think the PCB declined to make a fuss about it because they feared that CA would ask for a harsher Afridi punishment. Firstly, CA has no right to ask for a harsher punishment and secondly, I think the security breach was embarrassing enough for them as it is they who like to think of themselves as the champions of cricket related security. It could just be that the Pakistanis are nice people who don't want to kick up a needless fuss like Indian did with the Bucknor and Symonds/Harbhajan incidents for example.
As for the cartoon, they got the order wrong. It was 6 white ODI balls not 6 red Test ones :)....O, and we Pakistanis tend to hold the fork in the right hand also.
Maybe saying the tackle was funny was wrong (although I think what Afridi did was funny as well - and wierd) - it wouldn't have been had there been an injury; and I do not think (and did not say, despite assertions to the contrary) that the pitch invader deserved a lesser punishment. I said I think Afridi deserved a stronger punishment. And I still do.
And just for the record, if it were an Australian who bit the ball and a Pakistani supporter who invaded the pitch my response would be exactly the same.
I didn't draw the cartoon, I just thought it was funny so I put it on.
Put this out yesterday but was too dead to advertise it
~ Play For Country Not For Self ~
The blond, the fat and the hungry
The tackle by the drunk bloke had nothing to do with cricket, and that is where this ordeal has become a bit ridiculous. That was purely invasion of play, en error upon security! While the drunked could have done something serious to the Pakistan fielder...he didn't. It was not a malicious intent just a terrible Rugby tackle, and I'm glad the Pakistan guy stood up to it. Whatever that bloke gets is due to what he did out of his own choice, not to do with cricket. It can't be compared to Afridi's incident which is what people have been doing. I guess this is what happens when controversy pops up in the space of 2 overs.
The tackle incident will be up to security at the concerned grounds to tighten up. The shot of a dart will do it with enough sedative to put out a Rhino!
I parcially agree with Kirby. That was blatant what Afridi was doing and I'm stumped by what he did, you'd be pretty certain as a Captain the camera's will catch you, but I think these guys get 'in the zone' and become a bit oblivious to what's going on away from the game. Anyway, that's the verdict and all I can say is imagine if it had been an Aussie? Punter would not do such a thing, I'm almost certain of that, but it's funny to think about it. When an Aussie cricketer steps out of line or as we saw a spectator does something it's nothing but constant finger pointing and you don't hear the end of it...same if the boys lose a big match! Peter Roebuck is the prize muppet to do this and label racism all over any incident concerning Australian cricket.
It's funny how one drunken clown breaching security immediately has people pointing fingers at Cricket Australia...'what if it had been an Aussie cricketer tackled' is what everyone starts to ask, Bull s**T, Bull s**t.
It's all out of ensuring cricket is enjoyable and whoever was involved in either of these incidents it is unfortunate.
Now I'm drifting off the point here, but Afridi's ban is directly to do with cricket, it was out of the spirit of the game and he can be relieved to have had a soft send off.
Errm, I know you didn't draw the cartoon Sid.
I said on Stani, Afridi deserved more. Why should the 'spectator' deserve a lesser punishment though?
Now how do you know that, Stani? I might be a great artist, you know :-)
...but I know you'd get the colour of the balls right :) Points please.
Post a Comment