The Cricket Australia board is set to meet early this week to make a final call on a bid by the players' association to have the suspensions of three men involved in the ball-tampering scandal lifted.
Bans to be lifted? Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft.
CA directors have been privately deliberating over how best to revisit the bans given to David Warner, Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft, for they do not want this to impact on what is hoped to be a more productive relationship with the Australian Cricketers Association.
It's understood the CA directors have several issues to discuss before determining whether to lift the bans immediately, allowing the three to return to international cricket and/or domestic cricket, and potentially including the Big Bash League, or rubber-stamp their suspensions. Bancroft – having been banned for nine months – can return to first-class cricket on December 29, but Warner and Smith are not allowed back until March 29.
This shapes as a more complex issue than just endorsing or torpedoing the submission put to CA by ACA bosses Al Nicholson and Greg Dyer.
Fairfax Media understands an immediate lift could be seen as unfair on Bancroft, who has served more time proportionately than Warner and Smith.
If Smith and Warner were able to return and play for NSW, one state source suggested rival states could be unhappy that the Blues now had the best two batsmen in the country and it could impact on the competitive balance of the Sheffield Shield. It has been noted the Blues began the latest round of the Shield in fifth spot, just ahead of bottom-placed Queensland.
Steve Smith and David Warner have been playing grade cricket, for Sutherland and Randwick Petersham respectively.Credit:Channel 7
There are also remuneration issues, for Smith and Warner were not awarded state-based contracts because of their suspensions.
The CA directors will also need to weigh up the public mood for a reduction in penalties, for no one wants the players to be jeered at grounds should they be seen to not have served their time. New CA chief executive Kevin Roberts initially indicated the bans would not be lifted.
It's also been seen as a test for CA in whether it can hold its nerve amid a tumultuous time in the game when the runs of Smith and Warner, in particular, are likely to be missed against a strong Indian attack when the four-match Test series begins next month.
Smith, Warner and Bancroft have been playing grade cricket during their suspensions this summer.
Cricket insiders hope a final decision this week finally gives clarity to the three men while allowing the Test side "clear air" ahead of the Indian series.
It's understood the ACA will not have the opportunity to make its case for the players in person before the CA board convenes.
The two parties have had a toxic relationship but were planning to meet this week as part of the Longstaff review's recommendation that, from within 30 days of the stinging report being publicly lodged, they begin to attempt to forge a healthier relationship. That meeting is now expected to be the week after next.
The ACA has stressed the three players and their management have not pushed to have the bans lifted, rather it was generated by the union in the wake of the Longstaff report revealing a "win-without-counting-the costs" mentality had spread through the organisation.
"The findings of the Longstaff review are new and significant matters, that got to the heart of the players' culpability and sanctions," the ACA said.
The three players opted to not appeal their suspensions in March, which has been seen as adding weight to suggestions their bans not be lifted.
Under the International Cricket Council's rules at the time, Smith was the only player suspended for his role in the ball-scuffing plan, that being for one Test. A separate CA review then led to the long suspensions.
"The question is not whether CA's investigation and board-imposed sanctions were 'full and thoughtful' but whether CA took into account CA's own culture, systems and responsibility for the events upon which it was sitting in judgment," the ACA said.
Source: Read Full Article