What's new

Faf du Plessis' appeal rejected after being found guilty of ball-tampering [update#142]

"South Africa's captain Faf du Plessis has been found guilty of ball-tampering and fined his entire match fee from the Hobart Test, but will be free to play in Adelaide this week."

Strange decision.
 
Faf du Plessis found guilty of breaching the ICC Code of Conduct

Link

South Africa captain fined 100 per cent of his match fee and receives three demerit points

South Africa captain Faf du Plessis has been found guilty of breaching Article 2.2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct following a hearing before Andy Pycroft of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees in Adelaide.

Du Plessis was charged by ICC Chief Executive David Richardson after television footage appeared to show Mr du Plessis applying an artificial substance to the ball during the fourth day’s play in the second Test against Australia in Hobart.

After hearing representations from both parties and evidence from the umpires in the second Test as well as Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Head of Cricket John Stephenson, Mr Pycroft found Mr du Plessis guilty of the offence.

The decision was based on the evidence given from the umpires, who confirmed that had they seen the incident they would have taken action immediately, and from Mr Stephenson, who confirmed the view of MCC that the television footage showed an artificial substance being transferred to the ball.

In summing up his decision Mr Pycroft referred to his role as requiring him to make a determination based on the ICC Code of Conduct, the Laws of Cricket and, in particular, the preamble to the Laws of Cricket and the role of the umpires as the sole judges of fair and unfair play.

Under the version of the Code that came into force on 22 September 2016, the offence was treated as a first offence. Mr du Plessis was fined 100 per cent of his match fee and is free to play in the third Test in Adelaide on Thursday.

In addition to the sanction imposed for his breach of Article 2.2.9, three demerit points have been added to Mr du Plessis’s disciplinary record.

Pursuant to Article 7.6 of the Code, if Mr du Plessis reaches four or more demerit points within a 24-month period, they will be converted into suspension points and he will be banned. Two suspension points equate to a ban from one Test or two ODIs or two T20Is, whatever comes first for the player.

Background notes

ICC Media Release issued on 18 November 2016 can be found here
ICC Media Release issued on 21 November 2016 can be found here
According to Article 5.1.9.2, the match referee now has 48 hours to announce his decision in writing with reasons
According to Article 8.2.2, Faf du Plessis has a right of appeal, which must be lodged within 48 hours of receipt of the written decision of the match referee. The process following the appeal is also explained in Article 8.2.2

All level 2 breaches carry an imposition of a fine between 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the applicable match fee and/or up to two suspension points, and three or four demerit points
Click to expand...
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Strange that a player gets banned for a slow over-rate but doesn't get banned after being caught ball tampering for the second time <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash">#Cricket</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/801005365018103816">November 22, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
SL_Fan said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Strange that a player gets banned for a slow over-rate but doesn't get banned after being caught ball tampering for the second time <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash">#Cricket</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/801005365018103816">November 22, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Worse than strange.

A Licence to Cheat.

I am well aware that all teams try as much as they can get away with.

And FAF is one of my modern cricketing heroes.

But this is actual a worse offence against cricket than what Amir, Asif and Butt did, in that it is the equivalent of doping in athletics - using illegal means to obtain an improved performance, and unfairly defeat honest players who don't cheat.

Sure, everyone does it. But when they get caught they should have the book thrown at them. Otherwise there is no deterrent.

I'd have given my former schoolmate Mike Atherton a 5 year ban from cricket when he was caught. And I'd do the same for this.
 
A five year ban for this?

That has to take the cake [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]
 
I would have given him a theree-match ban as he is a second offender.
 
Can't wait for the Aussie sledging. If I was a betting man I'd put money on Faf scoring a big daddy 100.
 
Du Plessis to appeal 'Mintgate' ruling

Link

Cape Town - Cricket South Africa (CSA) has confirmed that Faf du Plessis will appeal the ICC's ruling that found him guilty after the ball tampering drama that emerged after the second Test against Australia in Hobart.

On Tuesday, Du Plessis was fined 100% of his match fee from the Test, but cleared to play in Thursday's third and final day/night Test in Adelaide.

Du Plessis was charged by ICC Chief Executive David Richardson after television footage appeared to show Du Plessis applying an artificial substance to the ball during the fourth day’s play in the second Test against Australia in Hobart.

The decision was based on the evidence given from the umpires, who confirmed that had they seen the incident they would have taken action immediately, and from Stephenson, who confirmed the view of MCC that the television footage showed an artificial substance being transferred to the ball.

But, according to a CSA representative, the decision will be appealed.
Click to expand...

Cheers [MENTION=134334]Ozymandiasza[/MENTION]
 
Proteas focused on cricket – Domingo

Standard Bank Proteas head coach, Russell Domingo, says his squad is focused on the issues that they can control ahead of the third Test match against Australia starting at the Adelaide Oval on Thursday. The build-up to the match has been highlighted by several off-field disruptions, and while Domingo admitted that the preparation hasn’t been ‘ideal’, the squad remains determined to finish the tour off on a successful note after two dominant performances in Perth and Hobart.

Domingo spoke of the ‘togetherness’ and ‘unity’ within the group, which he hopes will be a significant driving force as the squad aims to become the first team to claim a series whitewash against Australia in Australia.

“It’s been an interesting few days,” Domingo admitted to the media in Adelaide on Tuesday. “We have had a wonderful tour here and we have played great cricket. We have had long discussions and our focus now is purely on cricket. Whatever happens with the hearing today, I can’t comment too much on it, our focus is entirely on the Test match that is coming ahead.

“The way we have been playing and the way we have carried ourselves, not just this tour but on previous tours where we have been under the pump; we have been to India which was a tough tour but the team’s dignity was upheld at all times. The team conducted themselves in a professional manner and we have always been a tightly knit unit. Hopefully this incident does galvanise the team more.”

The match will be the Proteas’ first experience with the pink ball and day-night Test cricket, a challenge they will embrace despite the novelty and hype around the untested conditions.

“That’s the attitude we are going into the match with, it’s just another ball,” Domingo said. “It might be a different colour, but we are playing on a cricket pitch and they have all played under lights before. We are the first South African team to play a day-night Test match in Adelaide, we have a great opportunity to beat Australia 3-0 for the first time in the history back home. That is what our focus is on at the moment, we are not too concerned whether it’s pink, white or red, we want to play the Test match.”
Click to expand...
 
Convict said:
Interesting how all the South Africans and the South African team want to keep on bringing up the red herring that it is an Australian excuse for losing.

Guess Clarke hurt some feeelings when he pointed out that South Africa happen to get caught ball tampering a lot.

And that sledge was too personal and hurtful for the poor widdle Saffers - who happen to get caught ball tampering far more than everyone else.

The way you're acting, questing Faf is like shooting bambi and not questioning a bloke who deliberately had a pair of cricket whites made with zippers in the pockets and then used said zippers to tamper with a ball
Click to expand...

The ICC shouldn't be traffic cops and rather find a way eradicate such matters from the game. The problem is inconsistency.
Players use hair gel, chewing gum, lip balm etc. on a daily bases. What's the ICC doing to combat that?
Nothing, poor really.
 
Anyway the best way to respond to this non issue is to thrash the Aussies in the third and final Test.
Will be interesting to hear the next round of excuses.
 
soso_killer said:
Anyway the best way to respond to this non issue is to thrash the Aussies in the third and final Test.
Will be interesting to hear the next round of excuses.
Click to expand...

Only excuse making is from your lot.

The crying that the only reason Faf Duplicity got caught out again was because apparently the Australians are trying to make excuses - which nobody has.
 
Convict said:
Only excuse making is from your lot.

The crying that the only reason Faf Duplicity got caught out again was because apparently the Australians are trying to make excuses - which nobody has.
Click to expand...

Findings from the hearing (evidence put forward by Faf's representatives) clearly demonstrate players from other leading nations doing the very same thing, yet the ICC treats them with impunity. Which is prejudice on their part.
Crime committed 5 or 10 days ago is still a crime today.

Secondly it's embarrassing on the ICC's part for evidence to be brought forward by a broadcaster. Alarm bells should have been ringing. They partially reviewed the match/evidence, in doing so missed out on charging Warner for ball tampering as he applied lip balm on the cricket ball. Unless we don't consider that an artificial substance.

Whichever way you look at it, the ICC hasn't covered itself in glory. They've shown incompetence and double standards in reviewing the entire issue.

By the way if the Australian media weren't cry babies, why did they not forward Warner's indiscretion to the ICC as well? Wouldn't that have been in the best interest of the game to eradicate all forms of "cheating"? Or that wouldn't have suited with the agenda?
 
KhanNn said:
Because he made it so damn obvious. Also remember when he was using his trouser zip
Click to expand...

and applying sugary saliva from various substances not limited to chewing gum is not?
And what of lip balms and hair gels?
 
This is so pathetic.

He used zippers previously and got away with a lenient punishment, same again.

philander was also caught scratching the ball against SL and guess what? He too was fined with a 75% match fee and got off lightly.

Could you imagine, if that was a Pak player involved in these incidents? They would have had harsh punishments dished out and some even calling for a "permanent ban".
 
soso_killer said:
Findings from the hearing (evidence put forward by Faf's representatives) clearly demonstrate players from other leading nations doing the very same thing, yet the ICC treats them with impunity. Which is prejudice on their part.
Crime committed 5 or 10 days ago is still a crime today.

Secondly it's embarrassing on the ICC's part for evidence to be brought forward by a broadcaster. Alarm bells should have been ringing. They partially reviewed the match/evidence, in doing so missed out on charging Warner for ball tampering as he applied lip balm on the cricket ball. Unless we don't consider that an artificial substance.

Whichever way you look at it, the ICC hasn't covered itself in glory. They've shown incompetence and double standards in reviewing the entire issue.

By the way if the Australian media weren't cry babies, why did they not forward Warner's indiscretion to the ICC as well? Wouldn't that have been in the best interest of the game to eradicate all forms of "cheating"? Or that wouldn't have suited with the agenda?
Click to expand...

But I thought respected 100 test veteran Hashim Amla told us that it was nothing and there was no way it would do anything to the ball?

I mean the logical outcome happened and Faf didn't get suspended. But the massive South African defensiveness and overreaction and finger pointing has been pathetic.

And no there isn't an actual inconsistency. The way the rule has always been governed is that if your not blatant and can maintain plausible deniability they will let it slide.

Not doing a Faf and sticking out the tongue, putting your finger onto the lolly and then rubbing the finger onto the ball.

Then again compared to his zipper days Faf is at least learning to be discrete
 
Convict said:
But I thought respected 100 test veteran Hashim Amla told us that it was nothing and there was no way it would do anything to the ball?

I mean the logical outcome happened and Faf didn't get suspended. But the massive South African defensiveness and overreaction and finger pointing has been pathetic.

And no there isn't an actual inconsistency. The way the rule has always been governed is that if your not blatant and can maintain plausible deniability they will let it slide.

Not doing a Faf and sticking out the tongue, putting your finger onto the lolly and then rubbing the finger onto the ball.

Then again compared to his zipper days Faf is at least learning to be discrete
Click to expand...

The ICC still have not released a statement on how exactly Faf changed the condition of the ball.
How did it behave after saliva was applied? etc
Amla has a good point actually, where is the scientific evidence?
Applying lip balm isn't blatant cheating? LOL.

Whichever way one wants to look at it, the ICC and the Australian media have been pathetic. As for "blatant" cheating and what not, cheats are cheats and should be punished to the full extant of the law equally and without prejudice. I hope Australia handle the pink ball better than they've handled this whole lollypop-gate.
 
Barragan said:
This is so pathetic.

He used zippers previously and got away with a lenient punishment, same again.

philander was also caught scratching the ball against SL and guess what? He too was fined with a 75% match fee and got off lightly.

Could you imagine, if that was a Pak player involved in these incidents? They would have had harsh punishments dished out and some even calling for a "permanent ban".
Click to expand...

Actually the Pakistani's would have been treated the same as Faf. Over last couple of days we've seen tangible evidence that the law is not the same for everyone. It's OK for Australia, India and England to condition the ball whichever way they see fit.
The ICC's double standards are palpable. If it's in the best interest of the game to ban/suspend Faf then it should be the same across the board.
There's no such thing as a smart cheat, a criminal is still a criminal no matter how sophisticated the nature of the crime.
 
CSA to engage with the ICC on its Code of Conduct and process

Cricket South Africa Chief Executive, Haroon Lorgat, has confirmed that the organization will together with Faf du Plessis and his legal team carefully study the findings of the ICC match referee, Andy Pycroft, before deciding on any next steps.

Pycroft has 48 hours to submit his written finding after he found Proteas Captain, Faf du Plessis, guilty of Breaching Article 2.2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct.

“At this stage we have advised Faf to reserve his position as regards the match referee’s finding and wait for the full reasons of his decision before deciding his next step,” said Lorgat.

“Faf is obviously disappointed by the decision and I can understand that. In fairness to both him and the ICC, this is an unprecedented case involving unique issues of policy, science and performance that need to be carefully considered at the highest levels within the game. “

“There are also other issues relating to fair and just process, interpretation of the rules and, importantly, the consistent application of the Code of Conduct that need to be considered."

CSA believes that the Laws of the game do not currently define the term “artificial substance”, leaving room for inconsistent application of the rules. For instance, the Laws currently prevent the use of artificial substances to polish the ball, yet artificial cotton fibres from playing kit can be used to shine the ball. Players also regularly chew gum when applying saliva to the ball, or ingest sugary drinks and sweets during short breaks in play before shining the ball. No action is taken by the umpires in these instances.

“Test match cricket is competitive sport at the highest level and players and fans deserve certainty around these issues. Integrity and consistent application of the rules are important for everyone,” concluded Lorgat.

CSA and Mr du Plessis will consult with their legal teams as regards the Match Referee’s decision and will also engage with the ICC to discuss concerns relating to the ICC Code of Conduct. In this way, these important issues can be carefully considered and clarified for all players in future.

Du Plessis has been instructed by CSA not to comment any further on this topic as it is sub-judice.
 
Cricket is such a dull sport and this is beyond ridiculous. ICC sounds like a whining little kid
 
Convict said:
But I thought respected 100 test veteran Hashim Amla told us that it was nothing and there was no way it would do anything to the ball?

I mean the logical outcome happened and Faf didn't get suspended. But the massive South African defensiveness and overreaction and finger pointing has been pathetic.

And no there isn't an actual inconsistency. The way the rule has always been governed is that if your not blatant and can maintain plausible deniability they will let it slide.

Not doing a Faf and sticking out the tongue, putting your finger onto the lolly and then rubbing the finger onto the ball.

Then again compared to his zipper days Faf is at least learning to be discrete
Click to expand...

What does it do? How much of a difference is there in the saliva of a player chewing gum, sucking on a mint and one who has just come from Lunch after having some dessert but has nothing in their mouth while on the field?
 
Faf du Plessis denies cheating, alleges being made 'scapegoat'

http://indianexpress.com/article/sp...mpering-faf-du-plessis-adelaide-test-4390833/

South Africa captain Faf du Plessis said on Wednesday he had been made a ‘scapegoat’ by the International Cricket Council and denied any wrongdoing after being found guilty of ball-tampering during the second Test against Australia.

Du Plessis, who was sanctioned for the same offence in 2013, was charged last week after footage emerged from the Hobart Test of him applying saliva to the ball with a mint in his mouth.

Cricketers in the field are permitted to, and routinely do, ‘shine’ one side of the ball by applying saliva with their fingers and rubbing it on their uniforms to encourage the ball to swing in the air when it is bowled.

However, it is forbidden to use ‘artificial’ substances to work on the ball.

After a marathon ICC hearing in Adelaide on Tuesday, the 32-year-old was fined his entire match fee but cleared to play in the series finale in Adelaide.

The ICC verdict was defended by its South African Chief Executive David Richardson as a “line in the sand” but current and former players slammed the decision, saying every team shined the ball in the same way.

Du Plessis, standing in for injured regular skipper AB de Villiers, expressed regret that the case had taken away from his team’s series-winning triumph in Australia and said he had never intended to cheat.

“I still completely disagree with (the verdict),” Du Plessis told a media conference in Adelaide in calm and measured tones.

“I felt like I’ve done nothing wrong. It’s not like I was trying to cheat or anything, I was shining the ball. It’s something that all cricketers do. Our mouths are always full of sugar, I think it’s such a grey area in the laws of cricket. I just ask for that everyone gets treated the same way. I think that’s fair."

“Obviously the ICC has taken a stance against me, to use me probably as a scapegoat now, but all you can ask for is that everyone gets treated the same.”
 
Bilal7 said:
What does it do? How much of a difference is there in the saliva of a player chewing gum, sucking on a mint and one who has just come from Lunch after having some dessert but has nothing in their mouth while on the field?
Click to expand...

Because the sugar doesn't stay in your saliva that long after lunch.

It work very well - which is why - as Faf points out every does it at every level of cricket and for decades.

Maybe more discretely than Faf but everyone has done it because it works.

Amla's weird spiel was nonsensical.
 
Well obviously it's against the rules... but is it really something that nobody else does?

Even if going strictly bu rules, his main problem is he touched his finger on the sweet directly, whereas most cricketers touch their fingers on their tongue. I mean this all sounds ridiculous.

Personally i would rather icc let this all go or ban all sorts of behaviour. I remever ricky ponting putting his hands on some other players gelled hair blatantly. The english players famously used mints in 2005 ashes. And all this lip balms, vaseline, sun screen, hair gel has all been going on for years, Even before bottle tops, dust in pockets etc.

If you really want to get into loopholes or other things players use to cheat how about that silicon tape on bats to hide hotspot edges?
 
"Ninety percent of the time, cricketers have got sugary saliva," du Plessis

an extract from his first press conference after the mint gate


Ninety percent of the time, cricketers have got sugary saliva," du Plessis said. "Whether we are drinking Powerade, Coke, Gatorade, eating sweets, sucking on jellies, our mouths are always full of sugar. It's such a grey area in the laws of cricket and its something that will be looked at. Us as cricketers, we think that it makes a difference but we are not scientists. We are not sure if it makes a difference. It's opened up a can of worms, what's going to happen now, going forward with the game. Something like this needed to happen to create a little bit more awareness on it."
 
KARACHI: Despite the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) clause nullifying the ball-tampering allegation against Virat Kohli, former Pakistan cricketers have demanded the world’s cricketing governing body to penalise the Indian Test skipper in the incident which relates to the drawn Rajkot Test against England.

After the 'mintgate' row involving South Africa skipper Faf du Plessis in which he was found guilty of ball-tempering, a British tabloid had yesterday accused that some footages of the Rajkot Test indicated that Kohli appeared to shine the ball using residue from a sweet.

Calling for a fine against the Indian batting mainstay, former Pakistan leg-spinner Abdul Qadir said if the ICC doesn’t take any action against Kohli then all the member cricket boards should pressurise it to take action against Kohli.

“He should also be fined. The ICC should ensure that the rules are same for everybody,” Qadir was quoted as saying by the Dawn.

Qadir further accused the ICC of being biased towards the Indian players.

“When it comes to ban a Pakistani player on bowling action or other things, the ICC steps in promptly and puts a ban. But in case of an Indian player, it backs out,” argued Qadir.

Echoing similar views, former Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Khalid Mahmood insisted the ICC behaves completely different whenever an Indian player is found involved in some wrongdoings.

“We don’t see application of the same rules for India. The ICC always treats India differently. Such an attitude is harmful for the game of cricket,” he said.

Mahmood further stressed that the match referee and field umpires present during the Test should also be banned over the fact that such an incident went unnoticed.

Meanwhile, former Test cricketer and chief selector Haroon Rasheed also pointed out that while Du Plessis was reported by the umpires, the authorities are keeping mum in Kohli’s case.

While the Pakistan players are demanding a punishment for the Indian all-rounder, the England team have not filed any complaint and have also declined to comment on the issue.

As per the ICC regulations on ball tampering, if a team wants to lodge a complaint about ball tampering by a rival team or its player; it has to be done within five days of the completion of the Test match.

It should be noted that the Rajkot Test ended on November 13 and if the Alastair Cook-led side had any complaints, they should have made it official by November 18.

Earlier, the ICC had said that the allegations of ball tampering leveled against the Indian Test skipper by a British tabloid did not hold much ground as per the specific clauses in the cricket governing body’s Rules and Regulations about playing conditions.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/spo...cc-of-being-biased-towards-india-1541843.html
 
Its right Faf du Plessis has been punished, the pictures show him clearly using an artificial substance to shine the ball in violation of Law 42.3. It was so blatant that the ICC would've lost credibility not punishing him.

I understand the CSA argument that the law isn't applied consistently. At all levels of the game you will see players using sunblock, hair-gel, gum, sweets etc to shine the ball. Its just that the home broadcaster was able to catch du Plessis in the act.

The problem is the law doesn't define what an "artificial substance" is. Artificial cotton fibres from playing kit can be used to shine the ball and the sight of a player rubbing the ball against their trouser is as common on the cricket field as leather on willow. If sugary saliva is deemed artificial, do we eliminate sugary drinks during breaks ? To what extent are we enforcing this ?

Greater clarity is needed on the law.
 
soso_killer said:
Actually the Pakistani's would have been treated the same as Faf. Over last couple of days we've seen tangible evidence that the law is not the same for everyone. It's OK for Australia, India and England to condition the ball whichever way they see fit.
The ICC's double standards are palpable. If it's in the best interest of the game to ban/suspend Faf then it should be the same across the board.
There's no such thing as a smart cheat, a criminal is still a criminal no matter how sophisticated the nature of the crime.
Click to expand...

sa are just as bad as ind, aus and eng, in terms of getting away with cheating and light punishment.

Maybe for an incident like this, a Pak player may have been given the same treatment, but would it have been the same if a zipper was used or scratch of the ball (like philander did)?

I highly doubt it and teams like Pak, SL, WI, BD and possibly NZ, would have had harsh punishments for using zippers and scratching the ball.
 
Barragan said:
sa are just as bad as ind, aus and eng, in terms of getting away with cheating and light punishment.

Maybe for an incident like this, a Pak player may have been given the same treatment, but would it have been the same if a zipper was used or scratch of the ball (like philander did)?

I highly doubt it and teams like Pak, SL, WI, BD and possibly NZ, would have had harsh punishments for using zippers and scratching the ball.
Click to expand...

Not this again..

Yasir just got a slap on the wrist for a positive dope test. One would imagine that he would've got a much harsher ban if the ICC are out to get the Pakistani players.
 
And geez, the likes of Qadir & co seem pretty desperate when even the English team are rubbishing the claims of ball tampering.
 
Cricket South Africa (CSA) has confirmed that Proteas captain, Faf du Plessis, has appealed the decision of the ICC Match Referee which found him guilty of a breach of Article 2.2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct.

“Faf has decided to appeal the match referee’s decision after he and his legal team had studied the written reasons provided by the match referee.” commented CSA Chief Executive, Haroon Lorgat.

“In his mind Faf is clear that he did not alter the condition of the ball nor did he intend to do so and that the match referee was not correct to find him guilty. He is understandably feeling aggrieved.”

“CSA will support him to appeal the decision before an independent Judicial Commissioner as there are issues relating to fair and just process, interpretation of the rules, science and performance that needs to be considered,” concluded Mr Lorgat.

As the matter will be subject to further legal process, neither Faf du Plessis nor CSA will make further comment on this matter.
 
His innings was mint, his declaration
sweet. He took the shine off all of
Australia's fine bowling and silenced
the lollygagging Australian fans.
Click to expand...

Summed it up nicely.
Now it's Warner's turn....
 
street cricketer said:
Not this again..

Yasir just got a slap on the wrist for a positive dope test. One would imagine that he would've got a much harsher ban if the ICC are out to get the Pakistani players.
Click to expand...

That was due to his personal use of drugs for medical reasons, which were banned and nothing do with performance or anything.

That was pure negligence and stupidity on his part, but it had nothing do with performance enhancing.

Also, remember Afridi being banned for 2 games?

Why not the same to faf or philander?

Heck, eng were doing something dodgy during the CT13 or some other occasion and the umpires had to hide the ball, to save them.

Do you believe, all the countries are treated equally?

Like I also mentioned, even a player from a team like SL, WI or BD would have been given stricter punishments.
 
Barragan said:
That was due to his personal use of drugs for medical reasons, which were banned and nothing do with performance or anything.

That was pure negligence and stupidity on his part, but it had nothing do with performance enhancing.
Click to expand...

Warne was caught up in a similar fiasco in his career and the only difference was that he said he ate his mum's pills by mistake (Yasir said he ate his wife's pills). Yet Warne got a stricter ban. If the ICC was so out to get the Pakistani players, it could've easily imposed a much harsher ban on Yasir.

Barragan said:
Also, remember Afridi being banned for 2 games?

Why not the same to faf or philander?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because Afridi actually ended up biting the ball and the other two made way less obvious and sly attempts at tampering the ball.

Barragan said:
Heck, eng were doing something dodgy during the CT13 or some other occasion and the umpires had to hide the ball, to save them.

Do you believe, all the countries are treated equally?

Like I also mentioned, even a player from a team like SL, WI or BD would have been given stricter punishments.
Click to expand...

I do believe that the ICC isn't out to get the teams other than the Big 3 teams. It's even more funny that people still find a way to whine about the discriminatory attitude of the ICC when the new ICC chairman (who is an Indian himself) has had a lot of tussles with the BCCI and has passed many favourable decisions to the PCB.
 
ICC Statement on Faf du Plessis Appeal

The ICC is disappointed that Faf du Plessis has chosen not to accept the findings of Match Referee Andy Pycroft and will instead exercise his right to appeal. A Judicial Commissioner will now be appointed to hear the appeal at the earliest opportunity.

Mr du Plessis was found guilty of breaching Article 2.2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct after television footage appeared to show him applying an artificial substance to the ball during the fourth day’s play in the second Test against Australia in Hobart.

The ICC will wait until the completion of the appeal before making full comment, but at this stage it is important to clarify the Laws of cricket. These state that a player should not use artificial substances to shine the ball. The ICC’s understands that to include, but is not limited to, sunscreen, lip ice and residue from sweets.

The ICC does not wish to prevent players from using these substances for legitimate purposes, however, any deliberate attempt to apply such substances to the ball, as was the case here, will not be acceptable. This will continue to be reported and the ICC confirms that unless the Laws are changed, the current practice of charging players when the evidence shows an obvious breach will continue. ICC Umpires will remind all teams of the Laws as they stand.

Following the appeal we will review the matter along with our members and the MCC to see if there are any learnings to be taken from this issue.
 
street cricketer said:
Warne was caught up in a similar fiasco in his career and the only difference was that he said he ate his mum's pills by mistake (Yasir said he ate his wife's pills). Yet Warne got a stricter ban. If the ICC was so out to get the Pakistani players, it could've easily imposed a much harsher ban on Yasir.



Maybe it's because Afridi actually ended up biting the ball and the other two made way less obvious and sly attempts at tampering the ball.



I do believe that the ICC isn't out to get the teams other than the Big 3 teams. It's even more funny that people still find a way to whine about the discriminatory attitude of the ICC when the new ICC chairman (who is an Indian himself) has had a lot of tussles with the BCCI and has passed many favourable decisions to the PCB.
Click to expand...

The main question is, did Warne suffer from high BP or a medical condition, that he took the medication for treatment?

Are you saying, that a player can scratch the ball, but only if he does it in a "sly" manner?

Basically, it is okay to scratch the ball and be caught on camera, but that shouldn't be a problem because he did it in a "crafty" manner?

Maybe, everyone should start scratching the ball because as per your logic, it is fine and nothing wrong with it or maybe the icc do think like that is well, hence why they have let off players leniently.

Hopefully, teams like Pak, SL, WI, BD etc also start doing that and cheat just like those guys.
 
Barragan said:
The main question is, did Warne suffer from high BP or a medical condition, that he took the medication for treatment?

Are you saying, that a player can scratch the ball, but only if he does it in a "sly" manner?

Basically, it is okay to scratch the ball and be caught on camera, but that shouldn't be a problem because he did it in a "crafty" manner?

Maybe, everyone should start scratching the ball because as per your logic, it is fine and nothing wrong with it or maybe the icc do think like that is well, hence why they have let off players leniently.

Hopefully, teams like Pak, SL, WI, BD etc also start doing that and cheat just like those guys.
Click to expand...

Tampering does exist - just because you don't see it as openly as SA tend to have done doesn't mean the other teams don't. It's an unwritten law of the game, as long as it's kept under wraps its fine, this was the case in years gone by and is also the case in the present too.
 
Haroon786 said:
Tampering does exist - just because you don't see it as openly as SA tend to have done doesn't mean the other teams don't. It's an unwritten law of the game, as long as it's kept under wraps its fine, this was the case in years gone by and is also the case in the present too.
Click to expand...

Even if they've been blatantly caught on camera?


How much more evidence do you need, before banning someone? Or does it only apply to certain teams?
 
Barragan said:
This is my point, why wasn't he punished severely?

Got a 75% match fee, instead of a 2 game ban or something - ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Because the regulations are in place - to punish him more severely the ICC would have to change its regulations which takes time, also if you are a repeat offender within a year then you do run the risk of getting banned for a Test or 2.
 
Haroon786 said:
Because the regulations are in place - to punish him more severely the ICC would have to change its regulations which takes time, also if you are a repeat offender within a year then you do run the risk of getting banned for a Test or 2.
Click to expand...

What regulations?

Afridi was banned for 2 matches, so where is the consistency?

After him, both faf (use of zippers) and philander were caught red handed.
 
Barragan said:
What regulations?

Afridi was banned for 2 matches, so where is the consistency?

After him, both faf (use of zippers) and philander were caught red handed.
Click to expand...

Didn't Afridi face a different charge, something along the lines of damaging the ball.
 
Faf du Plessis appeal hearing set for 19 December

Michael Beloff QC appointed Judicial Commissioner

The ICC confirms the hearing date for Faf du Plessis’ appeal will be Monday 19 December. Michael Beloff QC has been appointed Judicial Commissioner to hear the appeal.

Legal counsel for both parties will attend in Dubai, whilst Mr du Plessis will join via telephone.

The ICC will publish the result of the hearing through its usual channels and will not be making any further comment until that time.
 
Faf du Plessis's appeal hearing against Match Referee's decision has ended, Michael Beloff QC has reserved judgement, decision in due course.
 
Judicial Commissioner upholds Match Referee’s earlier decision as he rejects du Plessis’s appeal

The Chair of the ICC’s Code of Conduct Commission, The Hon Michael Beloff QC has dismissed Faf du Plessis’s appeal after the South African captain was found guilty of changing the condition of the ball in breach of Law 42.3 during the fourth day’s play in the second Test against Australia in Hobart.

Accordingly, the original decision of ICC Match Referee, Mr Andy Pycroft, finding du Plessis guilty of a breach of Article 2.2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct will stand. Mr Pycroft had handed a 100 per cent match fee fine, and consequently three demerit points, to du Plessis on 22 November following his hearing of the charge, which was laid by the ICC Chief Executive David Richardson.

Under the provisions of the ICC Code of Conduct, Mr du Plessis was represented by legal counsel in the appeal hearing convened in Dubai on Monday that lasted 2 and a half hours, which the player himself joined via video link. Having carefully considered the legal submissions made by the player and the ICC, Mr Beloff QC confirmed that du Plessis was guilty of breaching Article 2.2.9 and that the original sanction of 100 per cent of his match fee was appropriate.

ICC Chief Executive David Richardson said: “It is the duty of the ICC to ensure fair play on the cricket field. Although it was not picked up by the umpires at the time, when the incident came to our attention subsequently, we felt it was our responsibility to lay a charge in this case because the ICC can’t let such an obvious breach of this Law pass without taking any action.

“We are pleased that both the Match Referee and Mr Beloff QC have agreed with our interpretation of the Laws and hope that this serves as a deterrent to all players not to engage in this sort of unfair practice in the future.

“It goes without saying that we will be reviewing the outcome to determine if any additional guidelines are needed to provide further clarity to the players and umpires around this type of offence. However we are satisfied that the Law is clear and is implemented consistently.”
 
CSA accepts outcome of Faf du Plessis appeal

CRICKET SOUTH AFRICA (CSA) has accepted the decision of the ICC’s Independent Commissioner, Michael Beloff QC, to uphold the decision handed down last month by the ICC match referee, Andrew Pycroft, who had then found Proteas Test captain, Faf du Plessis, guilty in terms of Article 2.2.9 of the ICC’s Code of Conduct.

“We are satisfied with the matter being given due consideration by a person independent of the ICC. Both CSA and Faf believed that this appeal was imperative considering the important principles at stake.

“In our view, the fact that Mr Beloff deliberated for some time after hearing complex legal arguments from both sides demonstrates that this matter does indeed require further consideration and clarification from the ICC and the MCC.

“Notwithstanding the outcome of the appeal and Mr Beloff’s helpful rulings on the matter, we hope that further reviews of the Code of Conduct and the laws of the game takes place as players will no doubt continue to seek clarification as to what is or is not permissible in the light of this case,” commented CSA Chief Executive Haroon Lorgat.
 
A very important point has been mention in this press release, furthur clarification is required in this ruling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
Ravichandran Ashwin and Dindigul Dragons cleared of ball-tampering allegations in Tamil Nadu Premier League (2025) [Update@ Post#19]
Replies
38
Views
833
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Hitman
South Africa suspected Australia were ball tampering before Sandpapergate Test match: Faf du Plessis
Replies
7
Views
969
BunnyRabbit
B
MenInG
Faf du Plessis: You can always pick three Indian teams after the IPL
Replies
23
Views
4K
Rana
Rana
MenInG
“It’s important for Pakistan to play in home conditions" : Faf du Plessis
Replies
1
Views
613
Savak
Savak
MenInG
[Video] "You can get on top of Pakistan pretty easily without Babar Azam's runs" : Faf du Plessis
2
Replies
85
Views
10K
Mamoon
Mamoon
Back
Top