Why Pedro got away
Bowlers appeal for lbws, catches etc. When it's an obvious catch, such as a catch to cover or when third slip takes a waist high chance, there's no real reason to appeal.
The ICC's Code of Conduct, in clause 1.5 says
Excessive appealingThe second part of that above guideline is what was applicable to Sehwag. He was docked 20% of his match fee at the end of the Antigua test.
Excessive shall mean repeated appealing when the bowler/fielder knows the batsman is not out with the intention of placing the umpire under pressure. It is not intended to prevent loud or enthusiastic appealing. However, the practice of celebrating a dismissal before the decision has been given may also constitute excessive appealing.
The interesting thing in the two tests so far is that West Indies' bowlers have seldom appealed. On several occasions, the likes of Collymore, Bravo and Edwards have just kept running on, displaying a three-finger salute, in celebration. Now, Pedro Collins did something similar, and he was told that he was a bad boy.
Does Collins getting away necessarily imply double standards? Perhaps not, given that Laxman's edge was obvious, like the ICC points out. Of course, the fact that Lara got away at Antigua, is incomprehensible, despite feeble attempts to clarify the decision.
Yet, the actual reason why West Indies' bowlers have rarely had to appeal for their wickets is because they've not got a single lbw decision going in their favour so far. Then again, I don't mind the entire team getting docked their match fees if it means all their (non) appeals come about when West Indies loses wickets, resulting in a test series win.
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
Good thing you made a post on this....I don't see the whole furore over double standards between Collins and Sehwag case. In fact I am surprised that he was reprimanded, given the Laxman started walking immediately (as also explained in the same report). Sehwag, as you rightly pointed, was surely a different case from Collins.
Lara' case...umm...won't go much into that, but I can still say that watching the entire thing live, and hearing what Taufel said about it next morning, I was fairly sure that Lara didn't deserve much official sanctions. Except that he does need to be criticised by Windies board, and the likes of Holding etc for behaving tactlessly as a captain.
By 
worma (13 Jun 2006, 3:24:00 pm)
The reprimand was consistent with the letter of the code of conduct. You don't appeal => you get a rap on the knuckles at least. Grabbing the ball from the umpires and getting away with it because apparently the tv feed wasn't given to Doctrove does somehow seem to validate Bucknor's earlier claim about how TV production companies can influence decisions.
By Jagadish (13 Jun 2006, 5:25:00 pm)
Jagadish: Lara didn't escape because of the tv feed thing (this portion is ridiculous, I agree, but dont think its the real reason). As Dave Richardson also said (and Taufel had earlier confirmed) Lara was intervening because umpires had asked him to. And grabbing the ball from umpire, as a standalone action, can *never* be considered dissent unless we know the reasons, the words exchanged etc.
And I dont know what t.v. feed are they talking of, I saw the entire incident on the screen....absolutely nothing was missing. The focus was *always* on the umpires...I saw the ball-snatch, I saw him pointing something to umpire and speaking animatedly, I saw the umpires move towards Dhoni again, to sort-of rediscuss the issue etc. To me, it did not look like dissent, just indecision on part of umpire.
And why should Collins be reprimanded if Laxman walked (which I also saw)? Is a bowler fined everytime he fails to appeal for a batsman walking? And even if so, I ask why? Can't he say that he didn't appeal because he wasn't *asking* for the verdict, its the batsman's walk that prompted his celebration ;-)
By worma (13 Jun 2006, 6:57:00 pm)
worma: The feed that you and I see on TV isn't necessarily what's fed to the third umpire. For starters, the audio definitely gets masked out. I'm sure if he got the same feed that we all see, it's very likely that he'd be heavily influenced by commentators making those stupid drawings on the screen, replaying the position of the foot/bat frame by frame and freezing every now and then to indicate if it's out or not etc. I think he gets a separate feed (and the normal TV feed too perhaps).
I think the solution is to ban/fine batsmen who walk before waiting for the umpire's decision. If bowlers aren't allowed to celebrate before the umpire decides, why should batsmen be allowed to pre-empt the umpire? At least then we wouldn't have folks taking the moral high ground!
By Jagadish (13 Jun 2006, 8:33:00 pm)
Nah, banning batsmen for walking would be over the top. After all, they are penalised for 'overstayig' once the verdict is given.
I think we've got to realise that the nature of cricket, as a sport, is such that you cannot ever have complete objectivity...no matter how much technology and regulations you bring in.
About the feed to the referee, yes you may be right, be may be getting a separate feed. But surely they can't give him anything less than what we see - not in terms of commentary or graphics, but rather in terms of camera angles?
Btw, you read the recent clarification of law from ICC? Dhoni was out, as per those laws...as I had rightly pointed out at that time, and may I gloat that I was the only one to note that point :-) That in case of boundary decisions, the question asked from third ump is whether its a boundary or not, and in case of unclear evidence, the field umps give benefit of doubt to fielder i.e. no boundary. Which was the case here as well...just that no boundary here meant Dhoni was out.
By worma (14 Jun 2006, 1:37:00 pm)
Bowlers are penalized for over appealing _and_ under appealing. I think it's only fair that batsmen are penalized for sticking around at the wicket _and_ for walking before the umpire gives the decision!
By Jagadish (14 Jun 2006, 8:01:00 pm)
But batsman deciding to walk is anyway a genuine mode of dismissal (retired out)...so you can't really stop him :-)
By worma (15 Jun 2006, 12:40:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment