Shahid Afridi all set to cop it
After Herschelle Gibbs last month, it is now Shahid Afridi's turn to incur the wrath of ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed.
Shahid Afridi was not reported by the umpires after he waved his bat angrily at a spectator after being dismissed in the opening one-day game at Centurion. The ICC said that it couldn't do a thing since no one had complained. Speed then acted as befitted his name.
Afridi is now charged with committing a Level 3 offence, which could result in him being banned for 2-4 tests or 4-8 one-dayers if found guilty.
Given that Pakistan have 3 more one-dayers to go before the World Cup begins, my guess is that the ICC will not hit Pakistan hard. The ICC obviously won't admit it, but it will remember how Pakistan made a mockery of the game at the Oval and the danger that such a thing could recur.
What's going to happen is that Afridi will get a 4 ODI ban. Pakistan will appeal, and even if the ban is be reduced to 2 ODIs, it would still would mean that he won't play in the tournament opener, against the hosts. That is, assuming the PCB doesn't hastily arrange for a warm-up series against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. The other compromise could be Afridi being banned for a few tests, which Pakistan wouldn't mind at all, hoping that they could cross the bridge when they got to it.
Labels: 2007 world cup, afridi, ball tampering, gibbs, icc, pakistan, south africa, world cup
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
Hello!
With all due respect...
I disagree with your statement about how "Pakistan made a mockery of the Oval test". It was never Pakistan that refused to come out to play in the end. It was Hair being stubborn.
Darrell Hair had accused Inzamam of ball tampering with no evidence whatsoever. All Inzi asked for was evidence, or a players name.
Even now, months after the incident has been regurgitated in the news media and courts, there is no inkling of evidence.
Any team with an inkling of pride would have walked off the field.
India would have, and Sri Lanka already has (recall Murali).
Hair is a confrontational character and this is not the firs time the South Asian teams have had issues with him.
Let me know what you thoughts are on this. Naturally I respect your opinion as an avid reader of your blog.
By 
Unknown (9 Feb 2007, 6:49:00 am)
I have to agree with Omar.
Hair is hairy... and I've never liked him after he gave a LOT of doubtful LBW decisions for Warne to really kickstart Warne's career.
Balls pitching outside leg... and not "hairline" decisions. They were bouncing a stump and a half outside leg.
But I think what was meant is that Pakistan is not a team to "just take it" they'll complain if they are unhappy.
By Reenen (9 Feb 2007, 1:05:00 pm)
Omra: Pakistan refused to come out. They had the opportunity (and duty) to do so. They stayed back in the room after tea. Whether the umpires were unnecessarily hasty by flicking off the bails is a different issue. Pakistan made it a mockery officially by then coming out on the field when it was obvious what Hair had done (by the way, I am still not sure if removing the bails indicates end of game).
The laws say nothing about the umpires requiring to produce evidence. See our posts on the issue.
As for whether a team would have under normal circumstances walked off the field, I'm not sure that's an open and shut case. The teams you mention are India and Sri Lanka (besides Pakistan). Is that an indication that other teams (Aus, NZ, WI, South Africa, England etc.) wouldn't do this? Why? Why not? They don't have any pride?
Even if India (or any other team that I support) had done something like this, I'd have pointed out that they were wrong to do so.
Reenen: Pakistan will complain. Which is perhaps why they'll never get a decision against them. EVER AGAIN. Ironically enough, while Hair may have been responsible for giving lots of decisions in favour of Warne (and against other teams), he's now responsible for Pakistan (perhaps, if Afridi is let go scot-free) getting decisions in it's favour.
By Jagadish (9 Feb 2007, 4:07:00 pm)
England would have argued with the umpire, and their captain would have been forced to apologise so that the Test could continue.
By Geoff (9 Feb 2007, 11:42:00 pm)
No, what would have happened is that England's captain would have begun an argument with the umpire and just as he turned to go away and join his team, he'd have ricked his knee.
Then we'd continue to hear the bleating about the side being injury-hit yada yada.
By Jagadish (12 Feb 2007, 11:40:00 am)
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