Why will countries like India ever accept the banning......

....of one of their players again? Any banning after an argy bargy and all other teams will just point to the Johnson-Styris incident and subsequent very small punishment and refuse to recognise the ICC's ruling. The ICC should just admit that there's one set of rules for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, and another set of rules for India, Pakistan, and the West Indies. It's that blatant, and all it will lead to is the further deterioration of player behaviour around the world.

Henry wrote:....of one of their players again? Any banning after an argy bargy and all other teams will just point to the Johnson-Styris incident and subsequent very small punishment and refuse to recognise the ICC's ruling. The ICC should just admit that there's one set of rules for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, and another set of rules for India, Pakistan, and the West Indies. It's that blatant, and all it will lead to is the further deterioration of player behaviour around the world.

.

Johnson headbutting Styris = 60% match fees for a level 2 offence.
Gambhir 'elbowing' Watson = Match ban.

The problem lies in the system and it's interpretation.

Henry wrote:....of one of their players again? Any banning after an argy bargy and all other teams will just point to the Johnson-Styris incident and subsequent very small punishment and refuse to recognise the ICC's ruling. The ICC should just admit that there's one set of rules for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, and another set of rules for India, Pakistan, and the West Indies. It's that blatant, and all it will lead to is the further deterioration of player behaviour around the world.

Fark.

Mudge is an Indian thats been posing as an englishman for the past 6 years

Phurt. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Henry wrote:....of one of their players again? Any banning after an argy bargy and all other teams will just point to the Johnson-Styris incident and subsequent very small punishment and refuse to recognise the ICC's ruling. The ICC should just admit that there's one set of rules for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, and another set of rules for India, Pakistan, and the West Indies. It's that blatant, and all it will lead to is the further deterioration of player behaviour around the world.

You really are a stupid qunt.

When has SA ever disputed a banning?

Qunt with a capital Q.

Qunt

Henry wrote:Phurt. I'm just calling it as I see it. Through my one eye.

Fixed.

JKLever wrote:

Henry wrote:....of one of their players again? Any banning after an argy bargy and all other teams will just point to the Johnson-Styris incident and subsequent very small punishment and refuse to recognise the ICC's ruling. The ICC should just admit that there's one set of rules for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, and another set of rules for India, Pakistan, and the West Indies. It's that blatant, and all it will lead to is the further deterioration of player behaviour around the world.

Fark.

Mudge is an Indian thats been posing as an englishman for the past 6 years

Henry wrote:Phurt. I'm just calling it as I see it.

You're a farking tool.

Zat wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Henry wrote:....of one of their players again? Any banning after an argy bargy and all other teams will just point to the Johnson-Styris incident and subsequent very small punishment and refuse to recognise the ICC's ruling. The ICC should just admit that there's one set of rules for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England, and another set of rules for India, Pakistan, and the West Indies. It's that blatant, and all it will lead to is the further deterioration of player behaviour around the world.

Fark.

Mudge is an Indian thats been posing as an englishman for the past 6 years

Henry wrote:Phurt. I'm just calling it as I see it.

You're a farking tool qunt.

Soft Aussie

Yeah, but what's the interpretation? Anyone care to explain, cause I'm farked if I know.

Gambhir elbowed Watson deliberately, you can see it here.

Although Watson was behaving like a mouthy c*nt, perhaps more because he threatened to throw the ball at Gambhir a few times.

This is Johnson and Styris.

Does Johnson almost try to knock heads with Styris?

Anyway, what's the interpretation, anyone?

embee you're the ump, IIRC.

at least stryus had a helmet on and was at no risk...

gambhir got off lightly for only giving Notson the lightest of taps..had gambhir knocked Notson to the ground and given him a stomping with steel sprigged boots then he would have been given an ICC and possibly a UN peace prize for dealing with a menace

furriner wrote:Yeah, but what's the interpretation? Anyone care to explain, cause I'm farked if I know.

Gambhir elbowed Watson deliberately, you can see it here.

Although Watson was behaving like a mouthy c*nt, perhaps more because he threatened to throw the ball at Gambhir a few times.

This is Johnson and Styris.

Does Johnson almost try to knock heads with Styris?

Anyway, what's the interpretation, anyone?

embee you're the ump, IIRC.

I share your confusion. I used to think the bleating about bias was just "subi sookying" but now I'm start to think it was justified and agree we do appear to get off lightly more often than not.

I ain't complaining. Watson and Gambhir both behaved like cunni, and I don't much care who got banned, frankly. I didn't even remember it.

It's the possibility that there is rules based interpretation. Perhaps the Johnson incident was not so blatant?

Johnson...WTF!!!!!!!! he gets all uppity after bowling unbelievably farkin awful drossy pies which get duly dispatched and then he makes to headbutt the guy on his helmet....what a TOTAL TOOL!!!!!

Styris is unbelievably pug-ugly though. If he didn't have a helmet on, a head-butt may have improved his looks somewhat.

furriner wrote:I ain't complaining. Watson and Gambhir both behaved like cunni, and I don't much care who got banned, frankly. I didn't even remember it.

It's the possibility that there is rules based interpretation. Perhaps the Johnson incident was not so blatant?

.

It looke pretty blatant to me. Perhaps contacting (read nutting) a batsman's equipment is seen as less of an offence then contacting his person