Is Graeme Smith a cheat? No. Damn. (exclusive)

EDIT: Original post was based on the BBC article and also a few others from India about Smith Having a leg injury, he doesn’t, he has an arm/elbow or upper limb injury. The BBC is still running this as a leg injury, but as Brandon from the cricket corollary pointed out, in the SA the phsyio is quoted as saying it is his arm that is injured. Arm/Leg, same same.

So the post below, brilliant as it obviously is, is not correct. But I still like the phrase “This decision is based on Graeme’s current upper limb dysfunction.”

The other night Graeme Smith said he had cramp, and that he wanted a runner.

Strauss and the umpires weren’t comfortable with giving a runner for cramp and denied the request.

I was happy, Smith was pissed off, the world keeps turning.

Then I read this:

“South Africa captain Graeme Smith has pulled out of next month’s Champions League Twenty20 tournament in order to ensure he is fit to face England. Smith, who plays for the Cape Cobras, has been struggling with a leg injury, despite scoring 141 in a losing cause against England on Sunday. “

If he had a leg injury coming into that match, then he would not have been able to call for a runner.

From the laws of cricket:

1. Substitutes and runners
(a) If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have
(i) a substitute acting instead of him in the field.
(ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.”

If the leg injury was so bad he is not being sent to India for the Champion’s League, and he didn’t actually injure himself in this match, then this is gloriously dodgy.

I do not doubt he had cramp (not a fat joke, he looks slim to me), but he also had a pre-existing leg injury, which should have meant that he couldn’t ask for a runner under the rules of cricket.

The cunning prick probably thought he was getting around his injury by using the cramp, and then Strauss ruined that.

The SA team physiotherapist said he should be out of cricket for 4-6 weeks.

Being that it appears he didn’t pick the injury up against England, and it was serious enough to keep him out of action for a month the question has to be asked, was Graeme Smith cheating when he called for a runner?

I’ve grown to not despise Graeme Smith of recent times.

He is still not my favourite cricketer, but I do love his ability to play hurt.

That doesn’t mean he isn’t a cheat.

Not that cheating means I will turn against him, I sort of respect him more.

It should also be said I respect who ever uttered this:

“This decision is based on Graeme’s current upper limb dysfunction.”

Tagged , ,

0 thoughts on “Is Graeme Smith a cheat? No. Damn. (exclusive)

  1. richie_141 says:

    Upper limb dysfunction? Leg? I’m either drunk or missing something. Although the two are not mutually exclusive…

  2. poopsie says:

    Oh he’s a fucken cheat. He is a prick as well. And an unlikeable cunt in every sense of the word

  3. Abigail says:

    He’s the most hated man in world cricket and that includes SA fans and the rest of the world. But upper limb, weren’t they referring to shoulder and elbow? I think you’ve been liberal with the facts here.

  4. jrod says:

    Abigail, read the first quote where they say leg injury.

  5. Brandon says:

    Ja, I don’t know where you read that but go check this article, it was one of the first about the story

    “We need to work on strengthening his muscles around the shoulder area and continue his post-operation rehab,”- Team physiotherapist Brandon Jackson

  6. Brandon says:

    Oh, this as well, it’s the latest on Biff

    • jrod says:

      Brandon, cheers mate. You are right, for some reason the BBC and a couple of Indian websites were saying it was a leg injury. Idiots.

  7. Dhananjay Mhatre says:

    Jrod, stop sourcing info from Indian websites. Their idea of finding the truth is making it up.

  8. Rayden says:

    Indian websites – seriously? I never go to those. Why do you think I visit your blog everyday for my cricketing news. I now I find out some of the news here was sourced from the Indian sites I was trying to avoid. There is no justice.

    btw, Indian blogs are a totally different breed. So my comments above was meant only for Indian Cricket News websites / portals.

  9. OzPuzzy says:

    Well he is not a bigger idiot than ponting. Besides the stupid Oz and English sites are so full of crap that I never visit em. The biggest bullshit eaters are those Oz pussies who cannot control their cums on seeing another male persons. I would always visit this site if Indian blogs are mentioned here.

    • jrod says:

      OzPuzzy, Great comment. You’re right this is a pro-Ponting site, we love him here, he is our hero, we can’t control our cums upon seeing him, and we never mention Indian blogs, as you can see from the 24hour blogathon and the cricket blogs section.

  10. jogesh99 says:

    Of course you respect him more if he cheats, you’re an Aussie.
    Oh, and you like Pointless, why, you seem to possess such a perceptive sense of humour – can’t you see he’s just a perverse joke on the cricketing world, just like Tony Greig. Note how the forked-tongued sniveller is sucking up to India by praising Tendulkar, in the hope of cashing in on the next IPL Ad season.
    i can just see it, his ghastly visage with the byline: Use Ausswipe, for that manly outback grimace.

  11. jogesh99 says:

    Brother jrod, we are soulmates. I think we need at least three blogs dedicated to tony grieg, one for each opportunistic nationality, the slime … oh fuck it!

  12. jogesh99 says:

    Sir, re your recent post “is it racist to hate the south africans?” (recent to me, that is)

    May i remind you that SA only made it that far because the self-same rain affected rule, that work of art by the mathematically challenged Ritchie Benaud, and inspiration behind Duckie and Louie’s transcendental opus, worked in their favour against Pakistan. See
    SA: 211 in 50 overs.
    When Pakistan was 74/2 after 21.3 overs, rain halted the play for an hour and the target was revised to 194 in 36 overs. (a Duckworth/Lewis calculation under the rules in 2006 would have set a target of 162).

    Oh, but that was against a brownie team, so its not bathotic, but just rotten luck niggers, and lets not be bad sports and ever bring it up again.