As anger cools, ball-tampering trio might be ready to launch appeals

As public anger cools, Australia’s three banned cricketers may yet consider an appeal to shorten their suspensions.

David Warner breaks down in a press conference on Saturday. Picture: Richard Dobson

David Warner should have his day in court and challenge Cricket Australia’s sanction despite playing a central role in the shameful episode.

Steve Smith should accept his 12-month Test ban for his failure of leadership and stupidity in Cape Town. Only through doing his time will he have suffered enough to be re-embraced by the game and most who observe it.

Smith could and probably should, however, request that the terms of his ban be adjusted. Cameron Bancroft might do well just to do the same.

A 12-month ban from all first class cricket in Australia for the fallen captain is really an 18 to 24 month ban.

Club cricket will dull him. He needs the chance to be exercising his skills in the domestic game at state level from the second half of the 2018-19 season at worse — effectively a 12-month ban from international cricket and a 10-month ban from domestic cricket.

He could play the back half of the state season for NSW and be ready to return to a place in the side should his form warrant it.

Bancroft can choose his own path, but would be best advised to proceed quietly.

The captain and Warner will miss the marquee series against India next summer. It will be agony to watch Virat Kohli’s men lording it over a team diminished by their absence

They will miss the Boxing Day and SCG matches against the traditional rival. Australia have eight three-match ODI series and a number of T20s scheduled for the 12-month period. The World Cup in England begins soon after the bans are lifted and then the team remain for the Ashes.

Smith would struggle to find enough cricket in time to qualify for those fixtures.

Even the worst offenders in the penal system are given time ahead of their release to sharpen their skills as their release date approaches so they are not set free with no ability to return to normal life. The back half of the state summer could be considered a form of day release.

Warner could follow the same path, but he could also argue that his sentence is unfair because it was arrived at with the contrivance of a board against whom he was pitched when acting as de facto shop steward in the contract dispute.

There’s nothing, however, in the code of conduct that stops integrity officer Iain Roy consulting with the directors when coming up with his response to the charges laid against the players by James Sutherland.

The charges were arrived at after a hasty 24-hour investigation. It is understood Smith didn’t have legal representation in the interviews.

The fingering of the three as sole participants needs to be more closely examined even if it is only to satisfy those who find it unimaginable.

There’s a softening in the public since the awful spectacle of the trio arriving home abject with grief. Voices in my inbox and on my timeline have calmed. One woman spoke on the day of the incident in anger at the “abhorrent” act but last night her tone had changed and she apologised for the rant. Others will remain angry no matter what happens but such never tire of burning witches.

Olympic basketball star Lauren Jackson rode in yesterday, tweeting this: “All I have to say is this — we have men in sport who have battered their wives and partners, assaulted strangers, wives and partners, sexually assaulted women, taken drugs — these men still have jobs & have credibility ... this is ANNOYING. How is this worse? #Hypocrisy”

Cricket Australia manage the game on behalf of the public and are right to reflect their attitudes.

Cricketers charged with a Level 3 offence can accept the initial notice of charge or they can ask for a hearing. They can admit the charge but dispute the sanction or deny the charge — basically plead not guilty and ask for a sober, unhurried examination of the facts.

The Australian Cricketers Association has questioned the severity of the sentences and the involvement of the board in arriving at them.

Warner will want to highlight what he sees as hypocrisies of his employers. Having been actively encouraged by some, at worse not discouraged by others, he has filled his role as the side’s attack dog.

The genuine suffering he felt around the attacks on his wife through the series may have affected his judgment. She says he would come home from work to find her crying, the children stunned by their mother’s grief. His pain at what she went through and is going through is real.

Cricket Australia stood up to Cricket South Africa and demanded Candice be protected, it is hoped they offered support to her husband and understood the impact on him.

He is no clean skin, he has done a very bad thing, but he was their vice-captain, he was in the days leading up to this series the captain of the Australian T20 side. The board knew him and sanctioned him in those roles. He is the only one on this series who shouldered the burden at the end of an intense summer. He did not get a break leading into the series as the other senior players did.

These are things he could argue as mitigation. If I know David Warner he will argue plenty of other things too. His refusal to answer questions about the culture of ball tampering and the knowledge others had of this one event is ominous.

It is not in his interests or nature to go quietly, but Smith and Bancroft need to tread warily and wisely.