★★★★★ 0/5

Today show defends David Warner as new Nine cricket commentator

Tim Gilbert & Karl Stefanovic back Nine's hiring of David Warner after ball-tampering scandal.

17
Leave a comment

Today show presenters Tim Gilbert, Karl Stefanovic & Sylvia Jeffreys have defended Nine’s hiring of David Warner as cricket commentator for the One Day International: England v Australia.

Warner is now serving a one-year ban following the 2018 Australian ball-tampering scandal.

“We’ve been criticised by some, but I don’t understand why,” said Tim Gilbert.

“But has he been banned from earning money, banned from working? He has a family.”

“They did the wrong thing, they’ve owned up, they’ve fessed up, hands up in the air and they’re banned. Not banned from any commentary boxes. I can’t see the criticism.”

While Georgie Gardner asked if it was “too soon?” Karl Stefanovic described it as “an astounding appointment.”

In March Stefanovic took aim at Cricket Australia boss James Sutherland for weak addressing of the scandal.

“Why dodge it? It’s cheating plain and simple – planned, premeditated cheating. You know it, I know it, the ICC knows it, and James Sutherland knows it,” he said.

Nine did not issue a press release on the hiring of Warner.

Via: Fairfax

17 Responses

  1. I realise that commentating is it playing cricket, but I think 9 have shown poor judgement hiring the alleged mastermind of the ball tampering scandal that resulted in a one year playing ban!

  2. Don’t have a problem with him commentating.
    What is strange. The players are allowed to play domestic cricket in the next season.
    This is more bizarre.

  3. It’s not acceptable under any circumstances Australian television seems to stoop to a new low every week .no morals or standards any more anyhting and everything seems to be acceptable nowadays. seven paying Joyce and his mistress was deplorable now nine giving Warner a commentary gig probably paying him in the millions is just wrong .they say cheats never prosper not in this case .too soon .people need to vote with their remotes .what else are those today show goons going to say Karl has shown to not have any morals with his behaviour anyways he others just following orders

  5. Definitely a ploy by 9 to try and get an extra rating point or two on Saturday night when Warner is set to appear when most people will be watching Australia v France match in the World Cup.

  6. Bancroft tampered with the ball (badly), and tried to cover it up. He owned up and wasn’t suspended by the ICC but they gave him 3 demerit points and fined him 75% of his match fee. Warner didn’t tamper with the ball, he showed Bancroft how to do it. and most likely put Bancroft up to it. Warner did not admit this so the ICC didn’t penalise him. Smith owned up to knowing about the ball tampering and was fined his match fee and suspended for one test by the ICC. Sutherland banned Warner and Smith from playing any form of cricket in Australia for 12 month to try and control the newscycle during the cricket rights negotiations. Warner and Smith are still under contract with CA, with Warner commentating and Smith playing overseas. Sutherland has resigned from CA.

  7. Of cause they defended the hiring, they would have been instructed to. Anyone with a bit of sense could see that. I don’t agree with his hiring. Yes he has a family to look after but do people really think he is on skid row…….not likely for a long time yet I’m guessing.

  10. Ball Tampering aside, there’s no doubting Dave has the cricket knowledge to be a cricket commentator, but I’m not as sure regarding his presentation.

    1. >> has the cricket knowledge to be a cricket commentator

      I suspect the jury is out on that. The only saving grace is that these are ODIs, not Test Matches.

      >> Ball Tampering aside

      Has any telecaster signed up Ben Johnson as an athletics commentator? The public weren’t thrilled with even the gambling advertisement. I think it’s a stretch that a cheat should be commentating the game. Maybe parliaments should review the ‘proceeds of crime’ legislation?

        1. Firstly, David, you might do well to not take everything literally. Like Donald Trump – take him very seriously, but not literally.

          That said, the world has changed. It is both ‘post-truth’ and disrupted.

          I know sport is not strictly your thing, but what Warner did was criminal, in the sense of “deplorable and shocking”. He was charged and sanctioned under a code of conduct.

          The Advertising Standards Board banned all 4 versions of the Ben Johnson ad, noting:

          “In the Board’s view the use of Ben Johnson in conjunction with a humorous message about drug use conveys a message that there is not a negative side to drug use and cheating and could be seen as a suggestion that there are benefits to gain from cheating or from behaviour that will enhance your performance.

          “The Board also considered that, despite the parody, there is little consequence depicted for these…

          1. With respect given it was not a crime it should not be included in proceeds of crime legislation. Law requires clear definitions not grey areas. In this circumstance I am comfy literal is absolutely necessary.

          2. The Board also considered that, despite the parody, there is little consequence depicted for these actions as the athletes are portrayed in a positive way, rather than showing a negative side to the choices they made in their sporting careers.”

            So, the parallel with Warner here is obvious. He cheated, and the positive outcome is a stint in the commentary box.

            > Law requires clear definitions not grey areas.

            Black letter law always is. But as the dual citizenship debacle proves, black letter law is open to interpretation.

            And, I might point out that in the entertainment industry there are a number of individuals who have been ‘charged and sanctioned’ by the ‘public court of morals’. Neither a civil nor criminal trial required. The world has changed.

          3. And you might also recognise a provocation when you read one. I’m sure you saw the quesiton mark.

  11. Well, that bit of TV came from the head office and all encouraged to support it and support it they did. I don’t have a problem with Warner earning money. Its just a tiny bit too soon for a commentary gig. Last series the Aussie’s played was the series he was sent home from in disgrace. If Ch9 paid him to write on the WWOS website on the game after the fact that would be far more appropriate than providing a ball by ball analysis live on TV. Perhaps this is also a contractual obligation on CH9’s behalf and loosing the TV rights may enact a penalty clause in the contract if he doesn’t – contract may include if he’s not playing he’s then available

Leave a Reply