Code of Conduct Register 2021-22 24 February

The Cricket Australia Code Of Conduct Register for the 2021-22 season is below.

#

PLAYER

DATE

COMPETITION

COMPLAINT / CHARGE

ACTION

23.

Jack Edwards

21 February 2022

Sheffield Shield (NSW v TAS)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – fined 20% of Match Fee

22.

Phoebe Litchfield

28 January 2022

Australia A v England A

Article 2.8 (Level 1) Showing dissent at an Umpire's decision during a Match

Guilty – fined 20% of Match Fee

21.

Sean Abbott

22 January 2022

BBL (Sydney Sixers v Perth Scorchers)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – official reprimand and fined $1000

20.

Aaron Finch

19 January 2022

BBL (Sydney Thunder v Melbourne Renegades)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty (second offence) – fined $7500

19.

Moises Henriques

19 January 2022

BBL (Brisbane Heat v Sydney Sixers)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – official reprimand and fined $1000

18.

Harry Nielsen

17 January 2022

BBL (Adelaide Strikers v Sydney Sixers)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – official reprimand and fined $500

17.

Alex Hales

15 January 2022

BBL (Sydney Sixers v Sydney Thunder)

Article 2.5 (Level 1) Abuse of Cricket Equipment or Clothing, Ground Equipment or Fixtures and Fittings during a Match

Guilty – official reprimand

16.

Sam Billings

6 January 2022

BBL (Perth Scorchers v Sydney Thunder)

Article 2.8 (Level 1) Showing dissent at an Umpire's decision during a Match

Guilty – $1,000 fine

15.

James Pattinson

26 December 2021

BBL (Perth Scorchers v Melbourne Renegades)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty (second offence) – $2,500 fine

14.

Matthew Wade

8 December 2021

BBL (Hobart Hurricanes v Sydney Sixers)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Pleaded guilty but challenged the proposed sanction ($2500 fine) at hearing before Match Referee.

Sanction determined at hearing by Match Referee - $1,000 fine

13.

Jake Weatherald

25 November 2021

Sheffield Shield (SA v QLD)

Article 2.5 (Level 1) Abuse of Cricket Equipment or Clothing, Ground Equipment or Fixtures and Fittings during a Match

Guilty – fined 25% of Match Fee

12.

Jack Prestwidge

18 November 2021

Second XI (NSW Metro v Victoria)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – official reprimand

11.

James Pattinson

8 November 2021

Sheffield Shield (VIC v NSW)

Article 2.7 (Level 2) Throwing a ball at or near a player in an inappropriate and/or dangerous manner during a Match

Disputed the offence and sanction at a hearing before a Commissioner.

Guilty - One suspension point and fined 100% of the match fee

10.

Molly Strano

26 October 2021

WBBL (Hobart Hurricanes v Brisbane Heat)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – official reprimand and fined 20% of Match Fee

9.

Beth Mooney

24 October 2021

WBBL (Perth Scorchers v Sydney Thunder)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – official reprimand and fined 20% of Match Fee

8.

Cameron Green

20 October 2021

Sheffield Shield (WA v TAS)

Article 2.8 (Level 1) Showing dissent at an Umpire's decision during a Match

Disputed the offence and proposed sanction (25% of Match Fee) at hearing before Match Referee.

Found 'Guilty' by Match Referee and fined 15% of Match Fee.

7.

Nicola Carey

17 October 2021

WBBL (Hobart Hurricanes v Sydney Sixers)

Article 2.5 (Level 1) Abuse of Cricket Equipment or Clothing, Ground Equipment or Fixtures and Fittings during a Match

Guilty – fined 15% of Match Fee

6.

Ashleigh Gardner

17 October 2021

WBBL (Hobart Hurricanes v Sydney Sixers)

Article 2.3 (Level 1) Use of an audible obscenity during a Match

Guilty – fined 20% of Match Fee

5.

Joe Burns

16 October 2021

Sheffield Shield (SA v QLD)

Article 2.8 (Level 1) Showing dissent at an Umpire's decision during a Match

Disputed the offence and sanction at a hearing before Match Referee.

Found 'Not Guilty' by Match Referee.

4.

Nathan McAndrew

16 October 2021

Sheffield Shield (SA v QLD)

Article 2.2 (Level 1) Excessive appealing during a Match

Guilty – fined 25% of Match Fee

3.

Marnus Labuschagne

7 October 2021

Sheffield Shield (QLD v TAS)

Article 2.2 (Level 1) Excessive appealing during a Match

and

Article 2.8 (Level 1) Showing dissent at an Umpire's decision during a Match

Guilty of Article 2.2 (Level 1) charge – fined 25% of Match Fee.

and

Disputed Article 2.8 (Level 1) charge. Found 'Not Guilty' by Match Referee.

2.

Hilton Cartwright

26 & 27 September 2021

Sheffield Shield (SA v WA)

Article 2.23 (Level 1) Where the facts of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly covered by any of the above offences, conduct at any time that either: (a) is contrary to the spirit of the game; (b) is unbecoming of a representative or official; (c) is or could be harmful to the interests of cricket; or (d) does or could bring the game of cricket into disrepute.

Guilty – fined 30% of Match Fee

1.

Duncan Harrison

21 April 2021- 9 July 2021

Off-field

Article 2.23 (Level 1) Where the facts of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly covered by any of the above offences, conduct at any time that either: (a) is contrary to the spirit of the game; (b) is unbecoming of a representative or official; (c) is or could be harmful to the interests of cricket; or (d) does or could bring the game of cricket into disrepute.

Guilty – official reprimand and required to complete workplace behaviour training/education approved by CA Integrity Unit and provide details of satisfactory completion of such training to CA Integrity Unit prior to applying for employment or holding any position within CA or a State or Territory Association (including W/BBL Team), including as an employee, contractor, official or officer.

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.