What I have heard from talking to some umpires is that the umpires as a group are furious that Johnson got off. He was reported by the umpires on the day as a moderate report. This means even with an early plea it would have been reduced to 1 match, meaning he would have missed the GF. Once the report got to the tribunal, they reduced it to minor. Meaning if he takes the early plea (which he did) it gets reduced to warning basically. This annoyed the umpires big time.My post was more a tongue in cheek post to wind up Serg. I don't begrudge Macleod in anyway shape of form, they thoroughly deserved the win. It wasn't for them to suspend Johnson, although you'd like to think they tore shreds off him behind closed doors.
I genuinely cannot see how anyone could mount an argument against what you've written, absolutely spot on. The only thing I can think of was the DVCA decided that it was in the too hard basket and easier to let it go through to the keeper. Can't help but wonder if it was a "lesser player" would the outcome have been the same?
Interestingly, if you look at the rule book as per the DVCA website, it has the following set penalties for Match Day Reports. How were none if not all of these used in this scenario?
- Bringing the game into disrepute
- Misconduct
- Breaches of Law 42 (Ball tampering, distract/obstruct batsmen, dangerous & unfair bowling, time wasting, damaging the pitch)
- Captain failing to ensure his team acts within the spirit of cricket.
All of these have set penalties of: Minor 1 match, Moderate 2 matches, Serious 3 matches, Extreme 4+ Matches.
Any time an executive member is dealing with an issue from their club, they remove themselves.Still reckon having someone on the executive from your club helps