If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass - a idiot

I'm no fan of Formula-1 racing, but what happened at Hockenheim in the German Grand Prix on Sunday was odd. Felipe Massa seemed to be following instructions to slow down, so that his teammate Fernando Alonso could win and give his team a better chance of winning the drivers' championship.

Scuderia Ferrari's (and Massa's) actions were in violation of clause 39.1 of the the 2010 Formula-1 sporting regulations, which explicitly prohibits team orders interfering with the race and clause 151.c of the FIA International Sporting Code.

I've not been able to figure out what the penalty should be as per the rules, but a monetary fine of $100,000 seems ridiculously low.

Unless the FIA does something real quickly and changes the rules to prevent such gaming of the system, I'm fairly sure that teams will attempt to repeat what Ferrari did.

We saw a similar example at the football World Cup recently where Luis Suarez (Uruguay) (possibly) deliberately obstructed the path of the ball with his hand in the last few minutes of extra time in his team's quarter-final against Ghana.

The FIFA laws resulted in him being sent off immediately, with a red card against his name, and a penalty awarded to Ghana.

Ghana failed to convert the resulting penalty, and eventually also fluffed the penalty shoot-out.

Did Ferrari or Luis Suarez do anything wrong under the rules of the game as they existed then? Of course, not!

Were the penalties strict enough?

In Ferrari's case, a fine of $100,000 is a pittance, considering their market value was estimated at over $1.5 billion last year.

The rules should ideally deduct points for such an offence, and force the team (not just the individual drivers) to be the last team to start the race, right at the back, regardless of the position achieved in the qualifying race. Actually, it's probably better if fossil fuels are conserved by disallowing the team from the qualifying race.

In Uruguay's case, it was the difference between a quarter-final stage exit (Ghana would have gone 2-1 up with about a minute to go), at least $4 million richer and a shot at reaching the tournament final. In Luis Suarez's case, it was the difference between going home a losing quarter-finalist and a hero who gave his side every chance of winning the quarter-final.

The rules should ideally award a goal to the team when the referee or linesman deduce that the player's action was deliberate, preferably through TV reviews and replays. This would be in addition to sending off the player after flashing the red card.

In my opinion, unless there are significant disincentives (including monetary ones), sportspersons (as well as teams & administrators) will attempt to push the envelope.

What's the linkage to cricket?

Someone famous (not sure who) wrote about Australia's cricket team that they would do anything to win - play within the rules, push them to the limit, and if necessary, go beyond them.

Is it Australia's fault that umpires and match referees fail to spot the obvious?

Is it Ricky Ponting's fault that the match referee Chris Broad warned Mohammed Aamer although it is quite obvious from the video that Ponting elbowed him, rather than the other way around?

Is it Sachin Tendulkar's fault that he keeps getting away with running on the centre of the pitch while others get hauled up for much lesser offenses?

Can you blame a team if it goes really slow with the bowling over rate to prevent the opposition from winning a test?

Can you blame a team if it decides to take the 2nd best option, having ruled out a win, of being thrashed and conceding a bonus point so that a 3rd team was (virtually) ruled out of contention for a finals slot?

Can you blame a team if it decides to slow down the chase so that a 3rd team would have a tougher chance of qualifying, since the rules meant that it would be carrying over 2 lesser points if the 3rd team qualified for the next round?

The administrators are responsible for drafting up laws that make sense, coming up with penalties that are appropriate, and most importantly, implementing them consistently.

This topic has a lot more immediate relevance given what's transpiring in Sri Lanka.

Unless the laws of the game are changed such that touring captains are always deemed to have won the toss, we might as well fast forward to the end of the game with the scorecard predictably reading "Sri Lanka 630/7d, Tourists 276 and 309 ao. Sri Lanka won by an innings and 45 runs".

PS: The title of the post is from Oliver Twist.

Labels: australia, behaviour, icc, laws, match referee, over rates, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:03 PM | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s) | Related posts
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Stop the gimmickry to save ODI cricket

Yesterday, it was revealed that Cricket Australia had the latest and greatest plan to revive ODI cricket.

It includes "double gaaji" for a select player, bowlers allowed to bowl 2 bouncers per over, flexibility on leg-side wides, limiting the number of fielders outside the 30 yard circle, requiring a team to only field a minimum of 4 bowlers, etc.

Except for the 2 bouncer per over change, the rest of the rules are all biased in favour of batsmen. If a team is only expected to field a minimum of 4 bowlers, and the rules are increasingly in favour of batsmen, sides will pack their side with quasi all-rounders.

Instead, the actual changes that the administrators need to make to 'save' ODI cricket are:

• Eliminate meaningless ODI series.
  
• Revamp the playing conditions to deal with weather-induced delays better.
  
• Remove limitations on the number of overs a bowler can bowl.
  
• Remove all field restrictions.
  
• Change the ICC playing conditions to enable boundaries to be 70-75 yards away from the centre of the pitch irrespective of square or straight boundaries. The current requirement is 65 yards (square) and 70 yards (straight).

Labels: australia, odi, playing conditions, rules

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:49 PM | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s) | Related posts
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The BCCI's professionalism and the ICC's Presidential hunt

The new-found professionalism in the BCCI didn't last too long, did it?

Last month, it withdrew the Indian team from the Asian Games by declaring that it would be impossible to tweak around with schedules drawn up in advance.

A couple of weeks ago, it announced that Ahmedabad, Kanpur and Mumbai would host tests against New Zealand. Obviously there was a huge communication gap between the BCCI and the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) because the MCA announced 3 days later that the Wankhede wouldn't be ready for international cricket.

Why exactly did the BCCI not check with its member association on the status of the ground & pitch? Of course, it is likely that the BCCI will clarify that Brabourne was scheduled to host the game, and not the Wankhede, thereby saving face.

Only ten days after being picked for the test series in Sri Lanka, Zaheer Khan ruled himself out because of a shoulder injury. Is this the same shoulder injury that resulted in him missing a lot of ODIs in 2009 after falling on his shoulder during the 2009 IPL season?

Presumably the selectors asked Zaheer he was fit before announcing his inclusion in the squad. So, what changed in these 10 days? Did he get specialist opinion advising him against undertaking the tour? Is he going to soon announce his retirement from tests to focus on the 2011 World Cup?

On 1 July, Sharad Pawar took over the ICC Presidency. Now, I don't know what the division of responsibilities is between the President and the Chief Executive (currently Haroon Lorgat) of the ICC. I've been unable to find anything on the ICC's website.

In a post in June 2007, after the ICC announced that he would be the President from July 2010, I called him 'Superman Sharad Power' since he would be juggling multiple responsibilities, including that of Union Minister, BCCI President and ICC President. Obviously he did give up the BCCI Presidency, but he continues to be the MCA President.

His stint as ICC President started off on a rocky note when John Howard's nomination as the next ICC President was not approved. There are enough comments about the rights and wrongs of the decision, but here are some issues which are beyond debate.

• John Howard's candidature was not unanimous. New Zealand wanted its pick John Anderson to be the joint-candidate. That didn't materialize.
  
• The ICC had declared, after David Morgan and Sharad Pawar ended up with equal votes in 2007, that they would go back to a system that had been previously used to select Presidents. The members of the ICC are divided into 6 blocs: England/West Indies; India/Sri Lanka; Australia/New Zealand; Pakistan/Bangladesh; South Africa/Zimbabwe and Associates/Affiliates. The Presidency rotates among these blocs, with each member from the bloc getting a turn every 12 years. England and India had their turn, and it was the turn for the Australia-New Zealand bloc to nominate their choice. There was no mention of screening the candidate nominated.
  
• Among the ICC's Executive Board, there are at least 4 representatives who are linked to politics. Mustafa Kamal (Bangladesh) is a Member of Parliament. Dr. Julian Hunte (West Indies) has been MP, minister & President of the UN General Assembly. Ijaz Butt (Pakistan) was appointed by the country's president. Somachandra de Silva was (Sri Lanka) appointed by the Sports Minister & was cricket advisor to the country's president. Peter Chingoka is widely considered to be a Robert Mugabe crony.
  
• John Howard has foot-in-the-mouth-itis. Evidence from posts on this blog: #1 and #2.

Purely on the basis of the facts above, and the reality that the ICC Presidency doesn't seem to have any real significant role, John Howard should have been given the opportunity to stuff up big-time!

Labels: bcci, bombay, india, mumbai, scheduling, wankhede

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:54 PM | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s) | Related posts
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]