Michael Clarke quoted as supporting VK's allegation towards Australia

[sandeep]

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/michael-clarke-says-virat-kohlis-allegations-australia-were-infringing-on-drs-rules-may-have-merit-20170307-guszyl.html

 

Quote

"My concern and my worry is that when you look at the footage of what happened with Steve Smith, Peter Handscomb ... actually suggests to Steve Smith to turn around and have a look at the support staff.

"If it is only a one-off, I don't think that would have happened.

"The fact that Peter Handscomb is even thinking about telling the Australian captain to turn around and look to the support staff, I've got my concerns."

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by sandeep

[kosingh]

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but we need to learn more about this story. The footage with the broadcaster (including un-aired camera angles) need to be examined.

 

This would be disgraceful if true, but again, it's better to be 100% sure when it comes to such serious allegations.

[Cricketics]

Honestly it won't have been a big deal to me if it was some other team doing this or any player say Du Plesis looking to Saf camp or Angelo Matthews towards his camp. But since it isAussies this time, and it is their captain, we better make it a big deal. They are loud mouth, both Aussies and English and they won't have spared us either if we had done this, since they are pretty good at slating opposition players. So we shouldn't either.

 

 

 

 

[sandeep]

7 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Good to see Clarke not blindly sticking up for people.

 

Out of curiosity though, how was Kohli able to say "I saw that two times happening when I was batting out there. I pointed it out to the umpire as well, that it's happened twice, that I've seen their players looking upstairs for confirmation, and that's why the umpire was at him." when there wasn't an appeal from the Australians (and therefore an opportunity to consider using DRS) whilst he was at the crease?

Sad that I have to explain this - but the Oz team could have been looking to the dressing room and taking their help in deciding not to review while VK was at the crease.  Absence of review does not disprove VK's statement.  And there were a few "half hearted appeals", just none that escalated to a review - possibly with guidance from the dressing room.

[kosingh]

1 minute ago, Cricketics said:

Honestly it won't have been a big deal to me if it was some other team doing this or any player say Du Plesis looking to Saf camp or Angelo Matthews towards his camp. But since it isAussies this time, and it is their captain, we better make it a big deal. They are loud mouth, both Aussies and English and they won't have spared us either if we had done this, since they are pretty good at slating opposition players. So we shouldn't either.

 

 

 

 

A one of incident might genuinely be a brainfade and not a big deal. But if there is evidence that this was done repeatedly - that it was planned - then it i a pretty big deal, IMO. But the evidence has to be there. 

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Cricketics said:

Honestly it won't have been a big deal to me if it was some other team doing this or any player say Du Plesis looking to Saf camp or Angelo Matthews towards his camp. But since it isAussies this time, and it is their captain, we better make it a big deal. They are loud mouth, both Aussies and English and they won't have spared us either if we had done this, since they are pretty good at slating opposition players. So we shouldn't either.

 

 

 

 

In theory, I'm OK with the rules being updated to allow for signaling.  But since its explicitly prohibited, we need to raise hell over it if the Aussies are guilty.

 

If a bowler tampers with the ball or pitch knowingly, they get suspended and fined.  Heck, if a bowler runs accidentally onto the pitch, he's held accountable and potentially banned from bowling.  A captain blatantly attempting to cheat on deciding whether to review deserves to be fined at the very least.  And if its more than one instance, then a ban is well deserved.  

[Cricketics]

Just now, kosingh said:

A one of incident might genuinely be a brainfade and not a big deal. But if there is evidence that this was done repeatedly - that it was planned - then it i a pretty big deal, IMO. But the evidence has to be there. 

Yes, but even for one-of scenariothey should fine him 20% match fee or something for the match. Thats not going to be too harsh  and will also serve as an example for future players. 

[sandeep]

Just now, Stumped said:

Except you can't review when you haven't even appealed for anything. Take a look back at it, there wasn't a single appeal whilst Kohli was at the crease.

Are you talking about appeals directed at VK alone?  Appeals at other batsmen while he's at the non-striker end would also count.

[Cricketics]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

In theory, I'm OK with the rules being updated to allow for signaling.  But since its explicitly prohibited, we need to raise hell over it if the Aussies are guilty.

 

If a bowler tampers with the ball or pitch knowingly, they get suspended and fined.  Heck, if a bowler runs accidentally onto the pitch, he's held accountable and potentially banned from bowling.  A captain blatantly attempting to cheat on deciding whether to review deserves to be fined at the very least.  And if its more than one instance, then a ban is well deserved.  

Hence insaid, start with 20% fine and then set proper guidelines. But do fine the duck. 

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Stumped said:

Yep, I'm referring to appeals directed at both batsman at the crease at the time. Kohli wasn't in particularly long in either innings so there wasn't much of a chance for many appeals and it just happened there weren't any (and no wickets fell) whilst he was at the crease.

I don't remember whether there were any appeals while VK was batting, but given how strongly worded VK's statement was, and the fact that he has already reported it to the umpires, I'm inclined to believe him.   And as Clarke says as well, the manner in which Handscomb points to the dressing room appears to indicate a comfort and a habit of doing this during the review process - he probably forgot to do it discreetly given the pressure situation.    Anyway, further evidence, and conclusively strong evidence, would be needed for bans to  come through.  

 

But as others including myself have posted, the least that they should do with Smith is to fine him.  As Captain, his actions were clearly a violation of the law and spirit of the game, and the rules have ample provision for fining him on those grounds.

[Bleed-Blue]

5 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Yep, I'm referring to appeals directed at both batsman at the crease at the time. Kohli wasn't in particularly long in either innings so there wasn't much of a chance for many appeals and it just happened there weren't any (and no wickets fell) whilst he was at the crease.

28.5

O'Keefe to Kohli, no run, sharp turn. Wider on the crease, flatter in the air, draws a forward-defensive from Kohli, and then turns sharply past the bat. O'Keefe appeals but not given. Rightly so

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Bleed-Blue said:

28.5

O'Keefe to Kohli, no run, sharp turn. Wider on the crease, flatter in the air, draws a forward-defensive from Kohli, and then turns sharply past the bat. O'Keefe appeals but not given. Rightly so

Add to that, VK's comments don't explicitly state that he saw it while he was batting.   He may have seen something and reported it while he was fielding - on day 2 and 3.  He clearly stated its been going on for 3 days.  

[Bleed-Blue]

3 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Fair enough, missed this one! You'd still need at least 2 appeals though surely?

Maybe this one 

Lyon to Kohli, no run, turn and bounce for Lyon. Kohli stays back, is beaten and is hit straight on the thigh pad. Just half a shout for a catch

[goose]

I have days 2,3 and 4...but the coverage won't necessarily pick up everything will it? i think the real issue is if Kohli did indeed inform the umpires / match referee. Remember Smith's assertion it was a brain fade came BEFORE Kohli dropped the bomb later. Smith probably thought it was safe to lie / call it a brain fade if nobody had slapped his wrist during the match.

Edited March 7, 2017 by goose

[kosingh]

Good point by an Aussie fan on their forums

 

 "for farks sake, as an Aussie I am embarrassed. For Smith to look up means that it is organised that there would be a signal. And it was obvious the umpire had his supisions because he was onto Smith straight away. More than a brain fade, we were blantantly caught cheating..... and I think it may be a bit more organised than just looking up. "

[goose]

Exactly..i could part understand a temptation to look at a replay on a giant screen (i don't think that's what happened?) but this was a look at the dressing room. Maybe they had an analyst in there assigned specifically to the task!

[kruiser]

12 minutes ago, Bleed-Blue said:

Maybe this one 

Lyon to Kohli, no run, turn and bounce for Lyon. Kohli stays back, is beaten and is hit straight on the thigh pad. Just half a shout for a catch

i searched and saw these two as well. 

[putrevus]

They must have had some kind of signal where designated person in the dressing room would act in certain way for them to go for the review. Kohli would be out of his mind to issue the statement he issued unless Indian team saw this happen more than once. Aussies so far have been very good in using the reviews and it looks like they had lot of help from upstairs.

Edited March 7, 2017 by putrevus

[mancalledsting]

35 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Fair enough, missed this one! You'd still need at least 2 appeals though surely?

I think you should quit whilst your behind

[mancalledsting]

Respect to Michael Clarke- historically gets on with desis