Third Test- Australia v South Africa

[Unbreakable]

Australia XI: David Warner, Matthew Renshaw, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith (c), Peter Handscomb, Nic Maddinson, Matthew Wade (wk), Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Nathan Lyon, Jackson Bird

Sayers misses out.

Pink ball, under lights on a questionable batting pitch.. Couldn't think of a better Sayers situation, would've preferred 4 quicks and Lyon missing out for this game.

 

[tommy]

for cheating? He gets no sympathy from me. They know what they are doing

Yeah I don't understand how he can plead not guilty when the camera clearly shows him doing it.

 

[1910]

for cheating? He gets no sympathy from me. They know what they are doing

Come on- cheating? Please.

If every fielder that has had chewy/lolly in their mouth and shined the ball was cheating you're left with a wicket keeper and that's it.

Australian's eat lolly snakes all game.

Why do you think players rub it on their forehead or places they know are sunscreen?

 

[1910]

Yeah I don't understand how he can plead not guilty when the camera clearly shows him doing it.

He pleaded not guilty to ball tampering not having a lolly in his mouth.

 

[Fozz]

Come on- cheating? Please.

If every fielder that has had chewy/lolly in their mouth and shined the ball was cheating you're left with a wicket keeper and that's it.

Australian's eat lolly snakes all game.

Why do you think players rub it on their forehead or places they know are sunscreen?

The old "everyone else does it" excuse ends in third grade.

 

[Socnorb]

Come on- cheating? Please.

If every fielder that has had chewy/lolly in their mouth and shined the ball was cheating you're left with a wicket keeper and that's it.

Australian's eat lolly snakes all game.

Why do you think players rub it on their forehead or places they know are sunscreen?

What ever the Aussies are doing It's not working very well,
Maybe they should change to Butter Menthols.

 

[1910]

The old "everyone else does it" excuse ends in third grade.

It's not an excuse it's the sport- you shine the ball.

If he was carrying something on him to scuff it up- that's ball tampering- throwing it on the bounce and shining it- come on.

 

[Fozz]

It's not an excuse it's the sport- you shine the ball.

If he was carrying something on him to scuff it up- that's ball tampering- throwing it on the bounce and shining it- come on.

Law 42 (Fair and unfair play)


3. The match ball - changing its condition

(a) Any fielder may

(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.

 

[1910]

Law 42 (Fair and unfair play)


3. The match ball - changing its condition

(a) Any fielder may

(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.

I know the rule.


How is spit or sweat artificial?

 

[tommy]

He pleaded not guilty to ball tampering not having a lolly in his mouth.

He rubs his finger on the lolly then the ball, this is clear on the vision. The rules are quite clear on this not being allowed.

 

[tommy]

I know the rule.


How is spit or sweat artificial?

You think they got it wrong? That he should have been found not guilty?

 

[1910]

He rubs his finger on the lolly then the ball, this is clear on the vision. The rules are quite clear on this not being allowed.

You can use spit on the ball.

It's not swimming; the rule doesn't say only shine the ball one hour after eating.

 

[1910]

You think they got it wrong? That he should have been found not guilty?

Complete non-issue shouldn't have even been heard.

South Africa's carry on and press conference- were poor but the actual act was nothing.

There isn't even any proof that spit mixed with lolly does anything; it's just become one of those myths that people do now when they field.

 

[Fozz]

I know the rule.


How is spit or sweat artificial?

Neither is but in Faf's case the lolly adds an artifical substance. I know it's hardly a soy sauce container of polish hidden under the tongue but it still breached the law.

 

[Broncoman]

I agree to an extent. He has improved but not markedly so. I would have taken a punt on Whiteman but understand why the selectors didn't want to get another rookie into that batting line-up.

The problem is that while Nevill's keeping is great, his batting has truly been a liability.

Ironically he was picked on the back of a mountain of runs for NSW. Dissapointing he didn't bring it to the next level.

 

[1910]

Neither is but in Faf's case the lolly adds an artifical substance. I know it's hardly a soy sauce container of polish hidden under the tongue but it still breached the law.

Which is my point- why fight this tiny battle?

Players eat toasties on the field- are we going to see if cheese is on the ball?
If I drink Poweraid and then shine the ball- what is that doing?
Walking out after lunch and I've just had a chicken leg and I am shining the ball? Is there traces of chicken on the ball? What if grease makes it swing?

In a sport where we have people throwing games- let's focus on the big things; not lollies.

 

[Fozz]

Which is my point- why fight this tiny battle?

Players eat toasties on the field- are we going to see if cheese is on the ball?
If I drink Poweraid and then shine the ball- what is that doing?
Walking out after lunch and I've just had a chicken leg and I am shining the ball? Is there traces of chicken on the ball? What if grease makes it swing?

In a sport where we have people throwing games- let's focus on the big things; not lollies.

At the end of the day, it's about the act not the lolly. As you said, match fixing is a big issue in cricket and where does that start? At taking a fifty to bowl a no-ball in a certain over. If you don't stop the rot at the very beginning then it gets a lot harder to stop. It's up to the ICC maintain the line they took against Faf with other players. Having the captain of a major test nation acting in this manner is not a good look.

 

[Socnorb]

South Africa have opted to provide their own ball for the 3rd test