Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Don has risen

sorry but you cannot take out the batwaving.

All of them were let off lightly that rightly includes Benn.
I would have penalised Haddin and Watson the most, Johnson the least. They were very provocative.
That encourages further action. Imagine what would have happened if Gayle had have behaved as Haddin did!

Billy Bowden was not at his best


Have we ever seen Billy Bowden's best?

The Don has risen

I believe that is a trick question.
I was impressed by the pom I must say

The Don has risen

I should have said previously the West Indian establishment should ensure that Benn does not become another Symonds/Singh.

He can go that road or become a very good test cricketer.


Agree entirely about Gould. Calm, sense of humour, not a lair, in control. Excellent tour.



Sueliman Benn has no priors. On the other hand, both Haddin and Watson do ( Watson has been cited twice between November 2008 till date (not counting the current penalty)).





As regards Benn having issues,elsewhere on the same site Mr Craddock had written how Mr Bennett King wanted to reduce the swagger in the West Indies team but realized on reaching the Windies that everyone there has a swagger.Could our unnamed match official be like Mr King?

After all, if a guy has the good sense to encash his winnings from the Stanford tournament and invest it in a house and a car and to give some to his parents, he cant be that much of a nut, can he?



Johnson was unlucky. There is absolutely no reason Surlyman should have been within arm's reach of either of the Australian batsman as they stood mid pitch between overs. He has gone out of his way to further provoke the situation and without that Johnson would have had no reason to do anything.

The downplaying of Benn's involvement in the incident is really starting to shit me.


In terms of the sentences handed down by the match referee, its important to note that Benn pleaded not guilty to bringing the game into disrepute, whilst the Aussies did. In any legal type hearing around the world, if you show remorse you'll get a lesser penalty. If Benn should be angry at anyone it should be the nuffies that told him to plead innocence in the first place.

Hangover Black

Read with caution - likely to infuriate:

Tony Cozier waves away Benn's part in the flare up with a "nothing to see here, folks", while simultaneously asking why Haddin and Johnson weren't suspended too. Weird.

Tone's rightly pointed out that the big story was PC acting like a two year old after a rasberry cordial bender, with the captain trying to outdo him in the imbecile stakes. Reflecting poorly is an understatement. If I was Ms Furlong I'd go while the going's good. With his recent injury free stint, it may be time for a new nickname. Prawn or Crayfish seem appropriate.


Homer, you're correct. "Priors" is sloppy word selection and implies actual ICC sanctions as opposed to something like "history" which more accurately reflects both Crash Craddock's article and Benn's previous, ahem, fun and frolics:

Clubs apologise for on-field brawl

The two clubs involved in the ugly fracas at Queen's Park have publicly apologised for the onfield brawl that sullied domestic cricket last weekend.

In reacting to a confrontation that involved Spartan's Sulieman Benn and Empire's Robin Parris last week Saturday, the two clubs yesterday said they regretted the incident in a joint statement just prior to the start of the second day of the Banks Division 1 match.

The furore developed after left-arm spinner Benn delivered a beamer to Parris just prior to the tea interval. When Parris was attempting to run a single off the next ball, television cameras captured Benn gently kicking him. Parris showed his frustration by walking past the stumps at the bowler's end and approached Benn in a face-to-face, glove-pointing, remonstration.

It's perfectly conceivable for Benn to have the good sense to cash his winnings then be a nut in a game of cricket.

Do you know the term "white line fever"? It refers to a sportsman who is a champion bloke off the field, but as soon as he crosses the "white line" into a match he becomes a lunatic.


HB, I see Coze cites the ultimate authority:

As Tony Greig, the former England captain, now television commentator, stated afterwards "a blanket should be thrown over all three, with the same penalty."

Cry "woof" and let slip the Dogs of Wild:

Instigators not punished enough - Anil Kumble

"The Australians always seem to get away. Whatever their transgressions on the field, invariably it is their opponents who end up paying a price. Somehow or the other, teams playing against the Aussies seem to invite the match referee's wrath."

Kumble was later heard to say: "There was only one side instigating out there."


One thing that struck me about Benn during the tour - he can bowl?! Never thought much of him before after seeing a fair bit which didn't look at all threatening. Good spin WACA Day 3, much better than Ritz on Day 4. Good drift and accuracy. Let's hope there is consistancy, god knows the WI's need it. Albeit, with some Harby Roller nuttiness for good measure. Or maybe it was the Oz batsmen making him look like good.


Out-spun the Hauritzer?!? I find that very hard to believe.


When Deodorant and Gnash were well ensconsed and our spin weapon Hauritzer was bowling, I'd given the test up and a 1-1 series. Holy shit, it may make for more interesting but doesn't hold any future Oz dominance in good stead. Prodigeeless. It's over.


Obviously, it was an ugly incident all round.

But, Homer, come on, all Benn's priors are widely known including the tripping incident, being forced to go to anger management and the stuff that Tony brought up.

Apparently Haddin went into the tribunal apologising before it even officially started.
When Benn pleaded not guilty, Broad apparently asked him to reconsider.

That's the real issue - how can Benn seriously plead that everything he did was in the spirit of the game.

Whilst I think the penalty was a bit harsh, I've got no sympathy as all he had to say was 'we were all acting badly out there and I won't do it again' - and he would have got 30-50% fine.

p.s. Watson's behaviour was just stupid.



The question of the guilty or not guilty plea in this case ( and in any other ICC based ruling) is that the player pleads guilty or not guilty to the issue under the section which he is charged.

So Haddin/Watson/Johnson had to plead guilty or not guilty of a Level 1 offence while Benn was faced with the same prospect under a Level 2 offence. Were Benn to be charged under a Level 1 offence, maybe we would have seen a different outcome.

And that is the crux of the problem - the arbitrariness by which ICC Match Referees seem to gauge the Level of the offence committed and punishment due thereof.

And talking of priors, didnt Haddin and Clarke have a love in during one of the Shield matches not so long ago? Not to mention Zak and Haddin getting it on during the Bangalore Test. Or Haddin breaking the stumps with his hands and claiming a bowled against NZ? And these are just instances I could think right off the bat.

Who then has the longer "priors" list?




Be mindful that Zaheer was charged with a Level 2 offence. While Watson has been charged with a Level 1 offence for a send off far more theatrical and prolonged the the Zak-Hayden incident.

And therein lies the rub.

Big Ramifications

And therein lies the rub.



Tallerboy is lucky I'm not the judge. They don't call me Hanging Judge Tony because of the size of my... ummm, lot of weather we've been having.


Homer, I also heard that Clint Mckay once complained to an umpire in under 14's. So therefore Benn should be let off.


Considering the Haddin/NZ incident was mentioned, I'll weigh into it...

At the time, I remember there was one angle which seem to show that it did hit the stumps. Sure enough, looking it up on youtube, there is one angle (half way through the clip) where the ball actually seems to hit the top of the bail and then goes into his gloves. This also explains why the side-on angle looks a little strange as the ball appears to enter his gloves much higher than it's apparent trajectory. Haddin's gloves are in front of the stumps for a time, but then he pulls them back - if it hits the gloves before the stumps, it's a dead ball, but it does seem to bail then gloves.

Question for the kids at home : If Broom referred it today, what would be the result?


Tony, you're right that noone partiuclarly likes angry bat-waving, but Benn seemed a lot more upset by a bat pointed in his direction than I can understand, so maybe there's an element of cultural difference, if not insensitivity. Then again, it's the sort of thing that depends a lot on what's being said, so nearly everyone who has commented on it is shooting in the dark.

Pushing isn't on, in my book, however wrong everyone else is. Johnson got off lightly. (That applies to Ponting as well, and possibly Benn in Adelaide.)

Homer, you are absolutely right that pleas to different charges can't be seen in the same light. Given that allowances are being made for "remorse" demonstrated by guilty pleas, it's actually quite silly that real plea bargaining isn't allowed. Then again, I'm sure that would be a mess too. Either way, it's surprising the number of people who are saying that Benn wasn't guilty of anything at all.

(As a sidetrack, since I don't think the priors are relevant (well, apart from the previous hour, and the previous week) - Clarke and Haddin in a shield match?? I know Clarke got into trouble with Katich for wanting to leave Test celebrations "early", but onfield trouble with a teammate? Wouldn't that be enough to lose the vc?)

The big standout is Watson. The contrast with Zaheer is huge (even though I don't remember that one as being less prolonged...), especially Broad's comments. It does look like whinging works, unfortunately. Gotta love Gayle's response. Then again, he's gotta be happy - Watson's loss of plot has taken all the attention from the embarassing fact that the took Gayle's wicket.



Pretty confident that one) the gloves were in front of the stumps for a dead ball; and two) the fingers knocked the stumps and dislodged the bails.

Also pretty confident that if Rauf Mauf was the TU he would have said "the ball sounded like it hit the stumps" (0:9) and thrown it back to the two umpires on the field.



I've played in matches here where blokes have pointed the bat at bowlers, keepers and fieldsmen. Some shrug it, some tell the waver to fvck off, some bowl a bouncer, and a couple have lost the plot. I don't think it's an issue of cultural in/sensitivity, I think it's an issue of hot-headedness.


Tony, the big problem with cultural explanations, both when they're nonsense and when there's a real issue, is that there's huge variety in temperaments and sub-cultures within countries as well. Domestic sports see just as much trouble!

Another thought - what is Coward on about with the wonderful status of the captain? Screaming at Roach might be even stupider (is possible), but certainly not less rude!

Big Ramifications

I know Tony's blog has an Indian following, which prompts the question: do half you guys hate Australian cricketers and have sand in your manginas?

"B-b-b but Australians!"

That's simply how your posts read to me. Spanky Roebuck standard, non-thinking, paint-by-numbers jingoism.

Big Ramifications

re: "Indian following."

Iā€™m honestly not trying to be coy here, but with all your "Western" names I can't remember which commenters are from the Sub Continent.

An Indian blogger who used to post here tried to "prove" a point on their blog regarding illegal 'keeper glove webbing. And amongst the picture examples they gave were:

Sub Continent wicketkeepers: webbing conveniently obscured.
Australian wicketkeeper webbing: large pre rule-change webbing.

??? Issues, or what?

Man, I'm still steamed about that. Especially since I 100% agreed with the blog post ā€“ in the comments section ā€“ before I discovered the rule change.


Tony, re Haddin, check 46 seconds and 114 seconds into the clip and watch the ball just jump slightly. If it hits the bail first then glove then it's not a dead ball, even if the majority of the gloves are in front of the stumps.
I think on the coverage at the time some overs later they showed an ultra closeup of it which was clearer - but ultimately it's just so grainy, and the film speed isn't fast enough.

I'm by no means a fan of Haddin, but I always thought he got a bit of a bum rap over this one. It's not like he simply punched the stumps and claimed it - it's a lot tighter than that.

Grace, Big Rammer's secretary

"That's simply how your posts read to me. Spanky Roebuck standard, non-thinking, paint-by-numbers jingoism.",

Oh, Big. You just sounded like Dirty Harry just then.

Big Ramifications

Really? Thanks, Grace.

Big Ramifications


And I've managed to turn my AWESOMELY funny post into a clusterfuck. Sorry, Tony. If you could fix the HTML italics tags?

[And quit complaining: You want me on that wall! You NEED me on that wall!]


Knew I'd seen another bat-waving effort around sometime, although not related to the current parties in any way I don't recall much of a furore being made about this one.


2:24 or thereabouts, couldn't find a clip without all the crap in the way.


Someone dun broke me post!

Clayton Bigsby

That Chris Gayle is inimitable mah ass! Thar he goes defendin that damned niggler Benn. God damn the man's a niggler lover and you know I caint stands that sort o thang.


Talking about cultural insensitivity on the cricket pitch, is there anything that other countries do in particular that has riled us?

Yes, Bodyline aside of course. And chuckers.


Hewy, it is a no ball (not dead ball) if the keeper has any part of himself/equipment in front of the stumps any time before the ball passes them (assuming htere was no edge or other contact with the batsman). It shouldn't have been out, even if Haddin was completely honest about it.

Dirty H. Callahan

Biggy, a man's got to know his limitations.


Hewy: I agree with you about the ball jumping slightly. I looked at that over-and-over last summer, but it is inconclusive whether the ball hit the stumps and jumped or whether the ball hit Haddin's finger and jumped. As you say, the footage isn't clear enough.

Viewing all the footage, rather than those two instances in isolation, I plumped for the latter. Especially since at 40 seconds it appears that Haddin's glove drags off the bail. Ball into glove, glove drags back, bail comes off. By the time the bail comes off, the ball appears to have an alibi. To quote the recent nomenclature, "the balance of probability" is that Haddin knocked the bail off with his glove.

My comment about Rauf Mauf contained trace elements of truth - it was a ball-on-stumps click - but was tongue in cheek.

Regarding Jonathan's subsequent comment about the position of the gloves, I actually knew it was a no ball, I don't know why I said it was a dead ball.

Law 40.3: Position of wicket-keeper
The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker's end from the moment the ball comes into play until
(a) a ball delivered by the bowler
either (i) touches the bat or person of the striker
or (ii) passes the wicket at the striker's end
or (b) the striker attempts a run.
In the event of the wicket-keeper contravening this Law, the umpire at the striker's end shall call and signal No ball as soon as possible after the delivery of the ball.

The key word is "wholly".

Haddin's gloves were not "wholly" behind the stumps. If the decision had been thrown to the TU, it would have... sorry, should have been given not out.

I reckon the only time it would have been referred is off the last ball of a match. Like last Sunday. If you have a referral up your sleeve and you are out, no matter how you are out, you may as well use your referral. Who knows, you might just get lucky. In that instance, Broome who would have had no idea there was any doubt, probably would have got lucky.


Vind: That was the match with the jelly beans.

What is more culturally insensitive: jelly bean strewing or bat waving?

Zaheer Khan's pointed sign of aggression

We saw the new face of Indian cricket yesterday, and it was not wearing a smile. By brandishing his bat in the general direction of Kevin Pietersen, Zaheer Khan broke one of the sport's unwritten rules - namely, that verbal conflict is just about acceptable, but physical aggression is beyond the pale.

Zaheer made his ugly gesture moments after the fall of India's seventh wicket, when their lead was already past 250. It was clearly prompted by verbal sniping from the England slip cordon - increasingly desperate verbal sniping, no doubt, as the match moved inexorably out of their reach.

Ugly, but not culturally insensitive; at least according to Simon Briggs.

And not ugly enough or culturally insensitive enough to draw a penalty from the ICC: Penalties imposed on player for breaches of ICC Code of Conduct - 2007. Too-Hard basket, anyone?



And this again raises the question about ad hoc manner in which ICC Match Referees adjudicate penalties and their impositions.


The comments to this entry are closed.