Symonds & Gilchrist on report

[Doctor]

Symonds and Gilchrist find themselves faced with a 50% fine if found guilty of a breech of the code of behaviour - they have separate hearings today.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/23/1077497518501.html

Symonds was reported for hanging around after being dismissed (subsequently re-called to the wicket), and Gilchrist has been found worthy of a report for dissenting the umpire's decision in the same LBW/non-LBW instance.

Both cases seem fair enough - players need to learn to keep their emotions in check. We'll see how the hearings go and find out what eventuates.

 

[Macca]

They were both right. It wasn't out. Unfortunatley it doesn't matter how right you are, the umpire always wins, no matter how wrong he is.

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't see the game but your saying Symonds has been reported for standing his ground so to speak, was recalled to the wicket yet faces a fine :shock:

What a joke

 

[DJDL]

I didn't see the game, but saw the incident on Sports Tonight.
I think when you receive a decision as obviously incorrect as that, then some leeway should be cut.

It wasn't as if they ranted and raved and were overly agressive toward the umpire.
It was more a case of finding it incredulous the umpire could have made such a decision.

 

[Anonymous]

Why should you be granted leeway? If the umpire says your are out, then you are out. The fact that the decision was reversed is inconsequential.

 

[ozbash]

agree balmain boy.

it was ignorance and arrogance rolled into one.

12 month suspension would be fair.....

 

[SirShire]

Bullshit.

What a crock.

 

[Paj8]

i saw it on the news he clearly edged it onto his pads

 

[weasel]

The fact that the decision was reversed is inconsequential.

If the decision hadn't been reversed would Symonds be up for this charge? I highly doubt it considering his reaction was pretty much identical to those of any batsman given out by a tough call. And what about all those batsmen that swear in anger, swing their bats, kick wildly upon getting out? And Gilchrist questioning the umpire about his decision? That happens occasionally too, he wasn't to expect the query would lead to the umpire changing the decision, I mean stuff like that never happens. The conduct of Gilchrist and Symonds was more than likely that which you can expect to see every game but it was unfairly scrutinised because of the attention the incident received.

 

[Anonymous]

hahaha

This was a copybook case of dissent. The umpire said out and both batsman turned to the umpire and walked towards him complaining loudly about the decision. It wasn't terrible, but they are clearly guilty.

 

[weasel]

This was how the incident was described in a Wisden comment.

"Symonds was shocked but kept his cool and walked. Gilcrhist, the non-striker, was equally appalled, his reaction tight-roping the definition of dissent. "

Symonds really should have nothing to answer for. Gilchrist's charging is debatable but still I stick by my opinion that had Symonds not been called back there would have been no action taken on the incident.

 

[Anonymous]

Well it looked to me as though Symonds complained loudly at the umpire, although it could have been a case of him just expressing his frustration to no-one in particular.

 

[Paj8]

yeh he shu8rgged his shoulders and stuff but still it wasnet out

 

[Paj8]

E8

 

[Twizzle]

What a joke.

When you get a bad decision like that, its natural instinct to react, you don't get time to think. When you do, that's when you have to walk off and not say anything, or cause disent.

Cricketers are not robots, thay cannot help thier initial reaction.

Those of you who have played alot of cricket will know this.

Considering how pathetic the decision was, I thought he handled it very well.

If any one showed disent for the decision, it was Billy Bowden, who told the ump he got it wrong.

 

[Paj8]

yeh i reckon it is stupid it is the umpires fault aswell

 

[SirShire]

Yeah, it does get frustrating and you do speak your mind. As do the fielders when things don't go their way.

 

[watto]

Why should you be granted leeway? If the umpire says your are out, then you are out. The fact that the decision was reversed is inconsequential.

could not of said it better myself
yes it was edged onto the pads, but the umpire can only call wat he sees
and if he didnt see it edged he has to give it out for lbw

yes symonds reacted to it knowing in confidence that he got an edge to it is still nothing to warant that behaviour

wat is gilchrist being pulled up for? telling the umpire it was not out and he got it wrong or what ???

 

[Meth]

There was a definite line between the actions of Gilchrist and Symonds.

Symonds was disappointed, and he had every right to be. He handled himself very well, considering the farsical decision.

Gilchrist went over the top, and crossed the line...fair cop

 

[Doctor]

The decision has been made - Gilchrist fined 50% of his match fees.

But I stand by the opinion that you cannot show visible dissent towards an umpire. No-one is saying you can't be disappointed, nor that you cannot show your disappointment. But standing your ground is dissent, so is saying "oh what, you're kidding", so too shaking your head at a decision, so too criticising a decision etc.

Whether the decision was reversed or not is of no relevance - it never has anything to do with how right or wrong the umpire was. It has everything to do with how the batsman reacts.

The Australians aren't in a bubble of protection. They are subject to the laws and bi-laws of the game like anyone else. I for one applaud the decision to continue to crack down on it. I'd also like to see the continual crackdown on excessive appealing such as the display shown by the Sri Lankans.

Fair hearing, fair result - no complaints from me.