Yeah, too much ambiguity in the rules. About the outrage, maybe it's an overreaction after finding out that they can't cover it up anymore (caught on live TV with Smith admirably choosing to own up rather than throw Bancroft under the bus). For so many years, the Aussie establishment furiously denied allegations of cheating and/or sledging that was profane or were even racism-tinged. I remember when Ponting let a reporter have it for suggesting that he claimed a catch on a bump ball (and it was clearly a bump ball) but not a word from Cricket Australia (some writers, notably Peter Roebuck, criticised his behaviour). And it wasn't even the first such instance. Also, their curious insistence that batsmen from rival teams should walk when only Gilchrist from their side actually practiced it. I think the other teams have generally had a realistic approach (more than a couple of Indian players spoke out, saying the punishment given to Smith was too harsh), recognising that all is fair in love, war and modern sport. Australia maintained this curious holier-than-thou posture while playing as dirty as the other teams and it seems to have offended the public and the politicians badly to have been found out in a way that is impossible to deny. I mean, if the cricket-watching public in Australia actually believed their players when they said they played hard and fair, that is laughably naive.
