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)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mitchell Johnson is the new Harry Houdini

In December 2009, Sulieman Benn, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson were involved in a downright ugly altercation at the WACA test. Johnson wasn't really the trouble-maker then, but less than three months later, during the Napier ODI against New Zealand, he was the instigator.

After being smacked for consecutive boundaries by Scott Styris in the last two balls of his 10-over quota (46th over of the innings), Johnson totally lost it.

He screamed at Styris and definitely head-butted him (see video #1 and video #2).

There were only two reasons why the situation didn't get worse - Styris was wearing a helmet, and Brad Haddin pushed Johnson away from the scene.

Again, as was the case at Perth, the umpire did nothing!

After the game, Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee had a man-to-man talk with Mitchell Johnson and Scott Styris and fined them 60% and 15% of their match fee.

Johnson was charged with a level 2 offence (2.2.4 dealing with inappropriate and deliberate physical contact). Styris was charged with a level 1 offence (2.1.8 dealing with actions contrary to the spirit of cricket, bringing the game into disrepute).

So let's go back in time. In December, Johnson brought the game into disrepute and his actions were contrary to the spirit of the game. At that same time, Sulieman Benn was given suspension points and missed two ODIs.

Yet, while Benn got suspension points, the ICC media release makes no mention of Johnson getting suspension points. I'm definitely not making the case that Benn got a harsh punishment. But the point here is around how somehow the ICC match referees tend to close at least one eye when it comes to judging Australian players' behaviour.

One suspension point means the player misses an ODI or T20 international. Two suspension points means the player misses a test or two ODIs/T20 internationals.

Clause 7.3 of the code of conduct deals with repeat offences within a 12 month (not calendar year) period. A repeat of a level 1 offence results in a fine between 50-100% of the match fee and/or 2 suspension points. A repeat of a level 2 offence results in between 2 and 8 suspension points.

In December, Johnson was hauled up under a level 1 offence charge. Last week, he was hauled up under a level 2 offence. But in both situations, his act was the same - inappropriate physical contact. Given the recurrence, it seems fairly obvious that he should have been suspended for at least 1 ODI, in addition to a monetary penalty.

Since he pleaded guilty early on, thereby escaping the match referee's wrath (?), I hereby anoint Mitchell Johnson the new Harry Houdini.

What's your opinion?

How did Mitchell Johnson get away without being banned for at least 1 ODI?
	He knows Ranjan Madugalle's dark secrets and is blackmailing him
	There was serious plea bargaining
	Ricky Ponting demanded that Madugalle take his word that Johnson was not guilty of anything
	Mitchell Johnson is the new Harry Houdini
	He's Aussie

Labels: australia, ban, behaviour, benn, chappell-hadlee, houdini, icc, johnson, match referee, new zealand, spirit of cricket, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:07 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Gavaskar apologizes

Sunil Gavaskar, who displayed very little maturity when he referred to David Hookes' death, has finally apologized for his remark.

On live television and radio, sometimes you respond on the spur of the moment with a remark that can cause hurt and pain to others.

I realise and I accept that what I said was uncalled for and inappropriate. Having said that, I hope they have the bigness of heart to forgive me for what I said about David Hookes.

Fair enough, Sunny. At least you realized and owned up that you messed up. I don't disagree with your comments on the Australian team's behaviour, but if 'spur of the moment' is your excuse, the Aussies can also say that all their behavioural malfunctions are on the 'spur of the moment'.

Labels: australia, behaviour, gavaskar, hookes

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:11 pm | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Some angry cricketers

Ricky Ponting is seething over Sunil Gavaskar's remarks last week that Australia's behaviour made them a less liked bunch of winners compared to the West Indies sides of the 1970s and 1980s. So Ponting went ahead and made the obligatory reference to Gavaskar dragging Chetan Chauhan to the boundary after copping a bad decision at Melbourne in 1980/81. This wasn't the first time Gavaskar had pointed out Australia's bad behaviour. He did so in 2003, while delivering the Colin Cowdrey lecture at Lord's.

Aside from referring to Gavaskar's antics at Melbourne (curiously, he didn't refer to Sunny's 36 at Lord's in 1975), Ponting talked about India's hopeless record in tests and said that he knew who he'd rather watch. I hope his national cricket board was listening. They seem rather over keen to have India play Australia, at various venues - now Ireland after Malaysia last year. Ponting also said that his team was placing a lot of emphasis on behaviour, something which he talked about a in 2005 and John Buchanan talked about in 2006. Maybe they're not doing enough - Australian players made seven visits to the ICC Match Referee's room in 2007, Ponting doing so twice.

It may not be a bad idea for Gavaskar to realize that there're genuine conflicts of interest between his duties as the chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee and his rights as a columnist. I don't remember who, but I'm sure I've read a comment piece some time ago by a columnist/editor in (possibly) 'The Times' which talked about Gavaskar's "inability to realize a conflict of interest even when it stared at him in the face". If Gavaskar had concerns about Australia's behaviour, I'm sure there are right 'channels' to get his concerns addressed, especially since his committee 'deals with any matters or issues relating to the game or the playing of the game.' (sic)

The other player who should actually be very angry, but probably isn't, is Denesh Ramdin. Rahul Dravid, while defending Sehwag's inclusion in the light of yet another low score, seemed to get a little angry.

I get asked this question why are you supporting Sehwag. Anyway my supporting Sehwag, it is not like I'm supporting Joe Bloggs, some Ramdin or Ramakdin or something.

Joe Bloggs, I can understand. Ramakdin, less so. But Ramdin? I mean, why pick on a 21-year old who's just about made it to the West Indies squad for the tournament?

Update: I wonder if Dravid or Gavaskar should point out that India beats Australia hollow when you compare recent one-day record against England because Ponting only referred to India's poor test record.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, behaviour, conflict of interest, dravid, gavaskar, india, ponting, ramdin, sehwag, sledging, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:52 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]