Had this nagging feeling, while writing the previous post on Chris Broad and the Australia-West Indies imbroglio. Here’s that thought, crystallized as a link. Something strike you as odd?
Watson, in the incident linked to above, pleaded not guilty. He got the minimum punishment. The match referee was Chris Broad.
Benn, in the incident yesterday in Australia, pleaded not guilty. He got the maximum punishment. The match referee was Chris Broad. Who, while delivering sentence, said:
Benn has the right to appeal and Broad said there was every chance he would have received a lesser penalty had he pleaded guilty.
If there is one thing Broad is, it is consistent.
Consistently illogical, that is.
PostScript: In the Gambhir-Watson incident, by the way, Gambhir pleaded guilty. And got the one match ban anyway. See what I mean about consistency?