"I'm from an usually liberal Sri Lankan family. They didn't mind if I married outside the family." Nish, a SL born Qld standup. His follow-up line is; "That got a much bigger laugh in Hobart."
On 14 May 2005 10:02:48 -0700, jlichterm@yahoo.com wrote:
jlicht...@yahoo.com wrote:>> "We have won the series, but it is a bit disappointing that we had to>> receive an over rate fine," Smith told reporters on the eve of the>> Queen's Park Oval double header.>>
"We will have to accept it. That's the rule. I do not know if I>> completely agree with a four-match ban, and so I will just have to>live>> with it.>>
"I do not think I will appeal it though. That may be dangerous. I>think>> it may be better for me to serve out the ban and get it over and done>> with, so I will take it on the chin and leave it to the International>> Cricket Council to review their rules and take it from there.">>
Of additional interest regarding this Smith ban.>The ICC said that because it was the player's second breach of this>provision inside a year, the penalty was automatically upgraded from>level two to level three. According to numerous articles, that previous>breach was also against West Indies, in the ICC Champions Trophy in>England last September.>
However, Jeff Crowe said "Graeme has been warned at a similar hearing>last September when in breach and has been advised on numerous>occasions that his over-rates are too slow, including being fined after>the second ODI of this series," Crowe said.>
Wouldnt that make this particular incident his THIRD and not his second>breach within a year?
Not necessaryily. The level 2 offence only happens if the team is more than 2 overs behind the required rate. The filne happens if they're even 1 over above the rate.
(Last September, the second ODI now, and the Third ODI now).
On 14 May 2005 11:18:57 -0700, jlichterm@yahoo.com wrote:
Govandi wrote:>> jlicht...@yahoo.com wrote:>> > jlicht...@yahoo.com wrote:>> > > "We have won the series, but it is a bit disappointing that we>had>> to>> > > receive an over rate fine," Smith told reporters on the eve of>the>> > > Queen's Park Oval double header.>> > >
"We will have to accept it. That's the rule. I do not know if I>> > > completely agree with a four-match ban, and so I will just have>to>> > live>> > > with it.>> > >
"I do not think I will appeal it though. That may be dangerous. I>> > think>> > > it may be better for me to serve out the ban and get it over and>> done>> > > with, so I will take it on the chin and leave it to the>> International>> > > Cricket Council to review their rules and take it from there.">> > >
Of additional interest regarding this Smith ban.>> > The ICC said that because it was the player's second breach of this>> > provision inside a year, the penalty was automatically upgraded>from>> > level two to level three. According to numerous articles, that>> previous>> > breach was also against West Indies, in the ICC Champions Trophy in>> > England last September.>> >
However, Jeff Crowe said "Graeme has been warned at a similar>hearing>> > last September when in breach and has been advised on numerous>> > occasions that his over-rates are too slow, including being fined>> after>> > the second ODI of this series," Crowe said.>> >
Wouldnt that make this particular incident his THIRD and not his>> second>> > breach within a year?>> > (Last September, the second ODI now, and the Third ODI now).>>
Yes, third breach, however the second breach was not a Level 2 one.>> The first and third breaches were Level 2.>>
A Level 2 breach is when the team is 3 or more overs past the>required>> over rate. (but sometimes Chris Broad thinks otherwise)>>
Two Level 2's with 12 months automatically becomes a Level 3,>> which is a ban of 4-8 ODIs.>
So, what level was the second breach?
It wasn't a levelled breach of the code of conduct. Slow over rates only become a breach when they're 3 or more overs behind the rate.
Also, its unclear why Smith got the minimum for a Level 3 breach when>he was warned and fined in the ODI immediately prior to the one that>resulted in the ban.
On 14 May 2005 08:23:42 -0700, jlichterm@yahoo.com enraptured with the Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the following:
"We have won the series, but it is a bit disappointing that we had to>receive an over rate fine," Smith told reporters on the eve of the>Queen's Park Oval double header.>
"We will have to accept it. That's the rule. I do not know if I>completely agree with a four-match ban, and so I will just have to live>with it.>
"I do not think I will appeal it though. That may be dangerous. I think>it may be better for me to serve out the ban and get it over and done>with, so I will take it on the chin and leave it to the International>Cricket Council to review their rules and take it from there.">
On 14 May 2005 15:26:37 -0700, "Govandi" <govandi24@hotmail.com> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the following:
alvey wrote:>> Govandi wrote:>>
snip>>
or when Langer knocks the bails off and appeals,>> <snip>>>
Eh? Did Langer actually appeal?>
Doesn't matter. He was implicitly part of the appeal>as he did nothing to revoke it. It was the single most>disgraceful thing I can think of that happened on a>cricket field.
You clearly haven't watched much cricket then.
But then with only one eye you probably miss half what is going on anyway.
On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:34:53 +1000, alvey <alvey_11_sidecast@yahoo.com> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the following:
Govandi wrote:>> alvey wrote:>>
or when Langer knocks the bails off and appeals,>>>
<snip>>>>
Eh? Did Langer actually appeal?>>
Doesn't matter. >
Oh Kay. So what you write doesn't have to be correct?>Thanks for the heads-up.
I thought that was clear when he said Ganguly didn't have a hearing wrt to his 6 match ban.
