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 ]

What were the umpires doing at Perth?

During the first over after lunch on day two of the Perth test in the Frank Worrell Trophy featuring Australia v West Indies, Sulieman Benn, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson got into a fracas. The sequence of events, which you can see in the video on YouTube, was approximately this:

• Haddin plays a ball towards mid wicket and sees the possibility of a quick single
  
• Benn, bowling from around the wicket, runs across to his right to cut off the single
  
• Johnson put his head down and ran, reviving memories of Forrest Gump
  
• Benn tries to get to the ball, and ends up looking like he was dragging Johnson back with his hand
  
• When the ball is 'dead', Haddin points his bat at Benn possibly asking him to stop coming in the way
  
• Benn is now really mad and keeps chattering & abusing away
  
• Gayle is standing still, first listening to Haddin's point of view and then to Benn
  
• Umpire Billy Bowden then steps in and asks Gayle & Benn to get on with it
  
• Benn, still very angry, asks Haddin some questions, throwing in a couple of obscenities rhyming with 'chuck'
  
• Benn then bowls an absolute ripper of a delivery that Johnson has no clue about. The batsmen cross over for a bye
  
• Benn is still unhappy and chattering away. He even appears to ask Johnson something, while Johnson practices his straight drive at the non-striker's end
  
• Benn bowls to Haddin, who drives the ball straight back. Benn threatens to throw the ball back (unsure if he was threatening to hit Haddin or the stumps) and Haddin provides a view of his stumps, requesting him to take a shot
  
• That was the last ball of the over. Haddin walks down the pitch grinning and saying something to Benn
  
• Benn tries to point out something to Haddin with his hand and accidentally brushes against Johnson
  
• Johnson pushes Benn away
  
• Bowden finally realizes things could be going from bad to worse and steps in

Purely going by what was seen on TV, there were multiple people at fault here:

• Benn - He had no business tugging at Johnson's shirt and trying to drag him back
  
• Haddin - He had no business pointing his bat and interfering with something that Benn & Johnson should have (and could have) sorted out between themselves
  
• Johnson - He can't be blamed too much because it is unlikely he would have realized that Benn brushing him was accidental. But given the heated situation at that time, pushing Benn away was a bad choice
  
• Bowden & Gould - The umpires are the biggest culprits here. The moment it seemed like Benn & Haddin were in a war of words, they should have stepped in and called a halt to the verbal warfare. They didn't, couldn't, or chose not to. Then, when Johnson pushed Benn away, Bowden was almost apologetically pleading with the players to move on. All this while, Gould, the square-leg umpire, was conspicuously absent, probably day-dreaming about the sumptuous lunch he had just finished

A couple of aspects of today's incident are interesting, and give me a huge sense of deja vu.

Symonds v/s Harbhajan at Sydney in early 2008: Harbhajan patted Lee on the back and Symonds, standing quite far away from the scene of action, stepped in quite unwarrantedly to save his mate's arse from Harbhajan.

Today, Benn ran into Johnson and Haddin batted on Johnson's behalf.

A couple of years ago, during the 2nd final of the triangular ODI series in Australia, Michael Clarke, the bowler, nearly pulled down Sachin Tendulkar's pants in order to prevent Tendulkar, at the non-striker's end, from taking a single.

There was no sign of any apology from Clarke, because he was only doing it hoping that Tendulkar's greatness would have 'rubbed off' on him. Tendulkar also seems to have rather enjoyed the fondling. Gautam Gambhir, who played the shot, did nothing. Of course, it is quite likely that this unwarranted & deliberate physical contact, and the absence of any action around it, 'inspired' him to try a similar stunt a year later.

Today, Haddin couldn't keep quiet, and had to intervene. An issue that could have been sorted out in a few seconds dragged on and on. It's quite likely that there will be follow-ups over the next 3 days of the test.

Benn has now been charged with a Level 2 offence while Haddin & Johnson have been charged with Level 1 offences under the ICC's code of conduct for players.

Clause 2.2.4 refers to "Inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between Players in the course of play during an International Match".

If Benn's physical contact (the act of tugging at Johnson, for I am unaware of any other deliberate/inappropriate physical contact) was wrong, Johnson is also guilty of pushing Benn away.

Haddin would be guilty under 2.1.4 (Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting) or 2.1.8 (conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game or brings the game into disrepute). I don't think he should be charged with a Level 2 offence because he only brandished his bat (admittedly, that did sort of make the whole incident a lot worse than it could have been) and almost definitely needled Benn.

Am I surprised that Haddin & Johnson are likely to get away with a lesser charge laid against them? Of course, not! We know by now who gets away with it.

Benn should actually feel proud that the Australians seem to be targetting him now. That usually happens to combustible folks who're doing well against the Aussies.

On a related note, Malcolm Conn's ghost-writer has once again forgotten to use the magic phrase "India have been the worst-behaved team in cricket over the last decade" in his latest piece.

Labels: australia, ban, benn, frank worrell trophy, haddin, icc, johnson, match referee, perth, spirit of cricket, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:56 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Morons running and ruining the game

The fourth day of the Mohali test between India & England got underway at 11 am IST today, after fog caused a delay of two hours.

India wrapped up England's lower order in quick time and at the time of writing, have a lead of 160 runs. There's no doubt that the aim would be to score at least 150-180 more runs by end of day today, and preferably bowl at least 3-4 overs at England.

That said, India may (unnecessarily) decide to play it a little safer. Remember that until a week ago, even 387, let alone 414 was considered nearly impossible to chase.

By the way, did anyone notice that West Indies' chase of 418 against Australia in 2003 had a debutant (Omari Banks) batting when the game was won, and yesterday, South Africa had Jean-Paul Duminy hitting the winning runs? It seems to me that South Africa's lower order batting is at its weakest since they came back to international cricket in 1992. They've always had chaps who could bat down the order. But they got blown away by Mitchell Johnson in the first innings. Since 1992, their #9, #10 & #11 have typically averaged 15-20 runs per wicket, but in the last 2 years its down to 12 & 9!

What was Ricky Ponting doing as captain? His main spinner was leaking 4.5 runs an over. Yet he didn't even bring on Symonds or Katich to try and do something different? I'm having evil thoughts now about why Ponting did nothing!

With Kevin Pietersen in such form in the test, there's a very high chance that India will end up batting all day and declaring only tomorrow morning after a couple of overs. Speaking of him, he has 15 test hundreds in just 3.5 years of test cricket. He has 4000 runs in that period, from just 45 tests. He's 28, and could really play for at least another 8 years. If England continue to play more tests than most other teams and he keeps going with his batting, he could end up with at least 12000 runs and 30+ centuries. In fact, I think he may go past Tendulkar and Ponting (if & when he gets there) in the centuries and runs tallies.

How amazing is that? I think he's a prick, but I have a lot more respect for him than someone like Hayden (I just love the scrutiny Hayden is facing having made 282 runs in his last 13 innings). Pietersen hits some amazing shots, and showed us the reverse hit yesterday. Until his innings yesterday, he only had 221 runs from 8 innings in India. I hope he doesn't get any more!

Coming back to the Mohali game and why I started this post, isn't it so f#@king stupid that when the light is good enough for play, the umpires decide to take lunch? This, when they've spent the last 2 hours trying to establish when play can start! Spectators and audiences (TV, radio, mobile phones, internet, etc.) get shortchanged due to such stupidity. Yet, the ICC ostrich continues to tell us that cricket is in good shape and its Chief Executives announce, after pointless meetings, that "There was also a general discussion on the issue of Test cricket with Members acknowledging the need to find ways in which this format of the game can be protected and promoted.". There's nonsense happening pretty much on a series-by-series basis, and yet the members keep acknowledging the need to find ways to protect & promote test cricket.

Speaking of the ICC, has it relaxed the rules on 'public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match related incident or match official' which is normally categorized as a level 1 offense? In the past week, there have been two players who've spoken out in the press conferences about the umpiring decision that ruled them out - Sehwag at Chennai and Pietersen at Mohali have both said that they reckoned the decisions should have gone their way.

Since there has been no action from the ICC against both players (especially considering Sehwag's statement was a week ago), can we assume that the ICC has decided to allow players a little more leeway in expressing their dissatisfaction with the umpiring? If so, why can't they just announce it officially so everyone can do the same without fear of being pulled up?

Labels: bad light, eng v ind 2008, england, icc, india, lunch, match referee, mohali, pietersen, playing conditions, rules

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:08 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What a series, pity about the pitches though!

A fantastic series came to an end with India winning at Nagpur to win the series 2-0 and bring back the Border-Gavaskar Trophy after 4 years.

Like I wrote fairly early on, partnerships at the top and the bottom proved to be crucial. Five out of the 50+ run partnerships for the first wicket were by India's openers. Right from around the time Harbhajan & Zaheer put on 80 at Bangalore, the momentum switched to India. Australia's woes got compounded with the Harbhajan-Dhoni partnership in India's final batting dig of the series.

Barring a couple of sessions here and there, the momentum stayed with the home team. India won most of the crucial sessions. Amazingly enough for a side as good as Australia, far too often they eased up the pressure when they had India by the unmentionables.

Is that an indicator of the quality of personnel on either side, the captaincy, luck, pluck, or a shift in on-field power equations? I'd still say that Australia started the series as favourites. But a lot of their personnel misfired at the same time. With the exception of Mike Hussey & Simon Katich, there was no consistency in the batting. Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke & Ricky Ponting fired only once or twice all series. In the case of the bowling, it was worse. Brett Lee & Stuart Clark just didn't turn up (strike rates of 111 & 219) and Johnson's numbers were hardly a true reflection of how ineffective he really was.

The fairytale story of Jason Krejza hid a very obvious problem: Australia thought they'd be better off playing Cameron White as a second all-rounder, and they got what they wanted (some decent stands with the lower order, but precious little with the ball). It was bloody obvious to most folks that White really shouldn't have played after Mohali (3/120 in 27 overs in the game on a pitch that helped spin). Yet, Ponting & the selectors persisted with him. Krejza was thrown in to the deep end when there was nothing to lose, and he showed White how to purchase his wickets. There'll surely be more innings when Krejza bowls far better for worse returns, but his out-of-the-blue performance should give Australia some hope for the future.

Several questions can be asked about Ricky Ponting's captaincy, for worrying about the opposition when he had enough issues on his plate such as team selection, consistently calling heads despite it not working out for two tests in a row, the field placements which meant Gambhir & Sehwag scored at will in the second test, prioritizing speeding up the over rate above breaking partnerships for the third time in the last 10 months, etc.

For all the pre-series talk of 'new age cricket', in terms of %age of runs scored in of their runs in 1s, 2s & 3s, the numbers were 49% for Australia & 53% for India. Even better, India's run rate when it came to scoring 1s, 2s & 3s was 1.85 an over while Australia's was 1.46 an over. Both teams were even when it came to the run rate for boundaries and sixes - India's was 24.47 an over while Australia's was 24.37.

Realistically, the only gains for Australia from this series have been, in descending order of an index (expectation + impact): Krejza, Hussey, Watson, Katich & Siddle. As a team, they have regressed. If it weren't for Clarke himself having a bad time, the knives would normally have been out for Ponting. Unless of course, the Aussie selectors want to take a bet on making Hussey captain. Australia's upcoming series against New Zealand & South Africa provide great opportunities for easing out Hayden from the opener's slot, given that Jaques & Marsh are waiting in the ranks. We could also see Andrew Symonds returning, thus giving Australia a better middle-order and an extra spin bowling option.

Yet, it isn't a case of all being hunky-dory for India. The fact that they won without two of the bulwarks (Kumble & Dravid) performing is an indicator of the depth available and the good form that the rest of the players were in. Kumble has now retired, but questions will be asked about how hungry Rahul Dravid is to get his batting (and amazingly enough, his slip catching) sorted out before the tests against England.

India's biggest gains from the series have been Dhoni's refreshing captaincy & his beginner's luck, the batting form of Gambhir, Sehwag, Tendulkar & Laxman, Ganguly & Kumble retiring with able replacements in the wings (Ganguly's middle order replacement is as yet undecided, with Badrinath, Rohit Sharma, Yuvraj Singh & Suresh Raina being the contenders) and the pace bowling department whose bench strength (Sreesanth, Munaf, RP Singh) is fairly impressive.

Australia losing this series doesn't mean they're not the best side. They obviously are, and do have the ability to stay there for a while. India have just reinforced the fact that they've caused Australia the most troubles over the past 8-10 years. It is going to be a fascinating battle between India, South Africa, England & Sri Lanka for the bragging rights to be called Australia's replacement if Australia do slip up majorly over the next year or two.

The main problems though are with the BCCI. Sparse crowds & slow pitches do not help the cause of test cricket at all. India has hosted the highest number, and highest percentage, of drawn games in the last five years. Overall, I think the series mostly sucked, in the context of the quality of cricket played. The placid pitches meant the play was mostly defensive in nature, and most of the time that strategy didn't work.

How much more interesting would this series have been had the pitches aided bowlers just a tad more than they eventually did? How much more enjoyable would the series have been for fans had they got access to (far flung) stadiums at reasonable rates without having to pay through their nose for five day tickets? Given that the bulk of the revenue for host associations in India comes from the sale of advertisement hoardings etc. at the stadium, they should just set rock-bottom prices to entice more spectators. It was ridiculous that when Tendulkar got past Lara and Sourav Ganguly made his last bow (only the Englishmen Billy Griffith & John Hampshire have scored a century in their debut innings and a duck in their last), there was just about enough of a crowd for it to be called a half-full (or is that half-empty?) house.

Here are a few statistical indicators of how huge this series win is: Australia have lost only 4 series in the last decade. Australia's two worst test defeats in the last decade came in this series and this was the first time in nearly a quarter of a century that Australia failed to win a single test in a series of 4 or more matches.

Update: I have this nagging feeling Australia have got away with it yet again with a fine of 20% for Ponting & 10% for the rest of the folks. This is the third time in 2008 that Australia is being fined for a slow over rate.

It happened in the Perth test against India and then during the triangular one-day series game at Sydney.

Penalties for over rates are level 1 offences. As per the 'Guidelines for Offences' section of the code of conduct, a repeat of a level 1 offence within 12 months would upgrade the new offense to a level 2 offence, which carries a penalty of 50-100% of the match fee and/or a 1 test/2 ODI ban. Has the ICC's database conveniently broken down again, like it did when Judge Hansen was not made aware of Harbhajan's history? The two penalties I mentioned above aren't even listed on the list of breaches & penalties in 2008 on the ICC's website. Go figure!

It seems to me that Ponting was scared of a test/ODI ban and that's why he used part-timers to speed up the over rate. Turns out that Broad was either ignorant, ill-informed, or just plain incompetent and so he's not considered it to be a repeat offence. Henceforth, Ponting won't bother about a possible ban on account of a slow over rate, because he knows that the match referee will invariably look the other way.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, icc, india, match referee, over rates, pitch, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:48 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Evil Indian ploy to win series 1-0

Name the banned Gautam Gambhir in the playing XI for Nagpur. Would Chris Broad, the match referee, rule that the game was conceded to Australia? He could do this under Law 21.3 of the test match playing conditions, since India were not supposed to pick Gambhir, and the BCCI insisted on picking him. If he did that, the BCCI could say that it objected to him being a match referee, in which case, the status of the game would not be a test match. Recall what happened in November 2001 when the BCCI and the UCBSA rejected Mike Denness' role as match referee.

Under such circumstances, India would win the series 1-0. If Broad himself decided that since the BCCI was hell-bent on picking Gambhir, and he ruled that the game was not a test match, India would still be the winner.

In the ICC Code of conduct for players & officials, I find only one reference (K-5, page 22) to the player's home board needing to ensure that the player is not selected. But that is in the context of a player not paying the financial penalty imposed.

If any Player or Team Official fails to pay any fine imposed upon him within the prescribed period that Player’s or Team Official’s Home Board shall ensure that the relevant Player shall not be selected for any Test Match, ODI Match or Tour Matches until the fine is paid and that any Team Official shall not be entitled to undertake any of their duties in so far as the same relates to any Test Match, ODI Match or Tour Matches.

Remember that Justice Sachs' decision is final and binding as per the appeals procedure (Clause H-11-k). What recourse does the ICC, or indeed the opposing team, have if the BCCI decided that since it didn't agree with the decision, Gambhir was going to play?

If someone can go through the document and point out an section of the code specifying that it is the home board's responsibility to not pick a player who has been banned (although you could question that it is such an obvious thing to assume!), and that the game would be considered as a forfeit, that'd be great!

Labels: aus v ind 2008, ban, bcci, gambhir, icc, india, match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:36 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Gautam Gambhir will miss the Nagpur test

Gautam Gambhir, who was banned for a test after he elbowed Shane Watson at Mohali, will sit out of the Nagpur test. This is because his appeal for a review of the ban has been rejected.

It is the right decision for several reasons.

• Gambhir was guilty of a physical offence, which carries a greater punishment than verbal abuse
  
• This was Gambhir's second physical offense in less than a year
  
• Gambhir had pleaded guilty to the charge

In the light of these facts, I have no idea what prompted the BCCI to go in for a review of the original decision in the first place! In fact now, the BCCI is threatening to up the ante by refusing to accept the decision. I have no idea why this is happening. In any case, Justice Albie Sachs, who was appointed by the ICC to hear the appeal, has presented a fact-based ruling about why the 1 test match ban should stand.

Malcolm Conn can keep writing about how the ruling would confirm India's standing as the worst-behaved team in the last decade. But the facts of this hearing and the Justice Hansen hearing of the Harbhajan v Symonds episode confirms Australia's standing as consistently displaying equally pathetic (if not worse) behaviour, considering the number of times opponents have complained about provocative and abusive language having been used by Australian players. The only difference is that, for whatever reasons, Australia's players are rarely pulled up before the match referee, and when they are, they get off lightly.

In a sense, it is good that Australia being the provocateurs most of the time is being exposed so that the players' double standards are brought out in the open. When Australia's players abuse and sledge, since it is the way they have always played their cricket, it is par for the course and opponents must cop it. But when opponents sledge or abuse, they go complaining to the umpires.

Mind you, this doesn't justify Gambhir's actions. But the fact is that the incessant abuse obviously got to him and that is what Justice Sachs hints at in his decision.

[16] In considering the proportionality of the penalty, I am prepared to accept that he had been the victim of prolonged and persistent verbal abuse by members of the Australian team, culminating in a moment of anger that led to his unfortunate lapse. I would add in his favour that the manner in which Shane Watson had raised an arm as he ran past for the first run, could have been taken by him as a mocking gesture, and thereby could have served as the last provocative straw.

[22] At the same time, it is not only physical argy-bargy that must be minimised. Constant verbal assaults are also unbecoming, and also bring the game into disrepute, the more so if their intention is to break the player’s concentration and provoke a loss of temper. To my mind, these 'verbals' as they are euphemistically called, whether they involve swearing or not, provide a kind of tension and aggression inconsistent with the spirit of cricket. Yet even if a case can be made out that the time has come to consider whether sledging has any place in cricket at all, one form of unbecoming conduct cannot justify another. However severe the verbal assaults on them may be, players are obliged not to give vent to their anger through physical retaliation. They must respond with their prowess as cricketers, and not with the furious muscle of out-of-control anger. Even a hint of physical retaliation must be strongly dealt with. And captains and umpires should be astute not to allow any badgering which raises the temperature and encourages undue ire.

This is a great opportunity for the ICC to step in and do something about abuse and sledging.

Update: Michael Jeh, on the Cricinfo 'Different Strokes' blog, has a good post on why the ICC needs to step in now. He also questions why the umpires did nothing about the constant abuse that Gambhir was copping. He asks an interesting question - Are these chaps at a workplace or playing a sport? If it is a workplace, clearly this abuse is unacceptable. If its a sport, then why not pay them commensurately, and besides, why abuse if it isn't something to be taken too seriously?

Labels: aus v ind 2008, ban, gambhir, icc, match referee, sledging, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:54 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Stop getting provoked, India

If it hasn't been obvious for a while now, it must be now. Australia will continue to get away with abusing and provoking opponents. It is really upto the opposition, and India in particular since these two sides are always having a go at each other, to stop reacting and getting provoked.

Perhaps it needs reiterating that despite Andrew Symonds admitting, during the hearings, that he had abused and provoked Harbhajan at Sydney, Judge Hansen's judgement didn't result in any sort of action against him.

Yesterday, when India were on 155/2, Gambhir was attempting to take a couple of runs. When he was about to complete the first run, he found Watson with a raised arm right in front of his face, on his way to the non-striker's crease. He evaded Watson, but then on the return, disgracefully & wrongly chose to stick an elbow out 'accidentally'. Was Watson trying to block Gambhir's path with the raised arm? We won't know. Was Gambhir getting one back for all the abusive words that he'd been copping all day? We won't know.

Gambhir also had a run-in with Katich yesterday, when he found his path blocked by Katich, in the unfamiliar role of a bowler. Verbals ensued, and Billy Bowden stepped in.

I didn't notice the umpires step in on the earlier occasion. When you read Michael Clarke's divergent takes on both incidents, it seems to me that Australia wanted Gambhir in the dock for the elbowing, but when it came to Katich blocking Gambhir's way (perhaps deliberately), it was all fair go.

I did see that on replay and I'm pretty sure the match referee, or whoever, will have a look at that. Like the incident with Kato, it's important we all get on with the game. As vice-captain, I grabbed Watto and just said 'continue to bowl well'. I said 'Say what you have to say and let's get on with it. Let it go, Kato, just get on and bowl, it's fine, let it go'.

The other thing that gets my attention is the list of 'targets' for Australia. Two conditions need to be satisfied for Australia to pick on them.

• They need to be fairly hot-headed folks, who give as good as they get, and especially do so in an explicit in-your-face manner that match referees can't ignore.
  
• They need to have performed against Australia, either in the past or in that game/series.

Harbhajan, Zaheer and Gambhir (so far) do satisfy both conditions.

Why the match referee chose to only take that incident to fine Watson 10% of his match fee is strange, considering that Watson was consistently hurling abuses at Gambhir, including after dismissing him. After Watson got Gambhir out, his reaction was certainly not "Fcuk, got him at last!". Did Broad ignore the provocation and focus on Gambhir's reaction?

I think Gambhir is actually in a lot of trouble. Last November, he had been fined 65% of his match fee after an India v Pakistan ODI at Kanpur for running into Shahid Afridi, and was very fortunate that the charge had been downgraded to a level 1 offence. Any repeat of a level 1 offence within 12 months automatically gets upgraded to a level 2 offence, which is what he has been charged with. The penalty is a 50-100% match fee fine and/or 1 test or 2 ODI ban, but decisions can be appealed.

What Gambhir, the rest of the Indian team, and especially the hot-headed folks, need to realize is that India have Australia by the cojones now. That is why Australia are provoking India's players. The best way to react is to stop being provoked & politely inquire about whether their WAGs will also be sitting on Allen Stanford's lap, smile, ignore the verbals and get on with the game by batting, bowling & fielding well. When you've got a double hundred or taken loads of wickets and Australia are losing, the verbals don't really matter any more!

Now for the stats. Only 25 players have scored double centuries against Australia. VVS Laxman has now scored the most runs against Australia in the 'Aussie dominance' decade.

Update: Gautam Gambhir has been banned for a test. The BCCI can lodge an appeal by tomorrow morning. Within 48 hours after the appeal is filed, the ICC has to appoint someone to handle the appeal. That person needs to complete hearing the appeal and arrive at a decision within 7 days. The Nagpur test starts on Nov 6. If the BCCI does appeal, Gambhir will certainly play that test. But I don't think the BCCI will, because Gambhir had pleaded guilty.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, gambhir, india, match referee, sledging, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:07 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Australia helped by ICC rules?

Australia was fined for a slow over-rate in yesterday's ODI against India at Sydney. Ricky Ponting copped a 20% match fee fine under Clause J-5 of the ICC code of CONduct which prescribes a 5% match fee cut for the players (and 10% for the skipper) for the each of the first 5 overs short of the minimum overs which should have been bowled.

So far so good. Except, Australia were well in excess of 2 overs short. They bowled 49.1 overs in 225 minutes. Being 2 overs short implies they overshot the time allocation by ~ 10 minutes. Which is obviously untrue since they overshot it by 25 minutes!

During the Perth test match last month, Australia were fined for being 2 overs short. This, when they bowled 98 ov in 450 min (> 45 min delay => at least 10 ov lag) and 80 ov in 360 min (> 30 min delay => at least 7 ov lag). Yet, the penalty was for being 2 ov slow.

The code of conduct considers a 5 over lag in a test and a 2 over lag in a ODI as a level 2 offense (50% or more of the match fee as penalty and/or a 1 test/2 ODI ban). The match referees' decisions to report that Australia were lagging by 2 overs implied that Australia couldn't be charged with a level-2 offense. Further, a repeat of a level-2 offense within 12 months upgrades the 2nd offense to a level-3 offense which warrants a 2-4 tests or 4-8 ODIs ban.

Ergo, Ricky Ponting should have actually been banned after this hearing. Yet, like we've pointed out here, some get away, and some don't. Maybe the fact that the penalty for the Perth game isn't even listed on the ICC website in the 2008 breaches & penalties section means that he managed to get away thanks to yet another ICC administrative screw-up.

PS: Were you surprised when Ponting made runs on the best batting track in the one-day series? I'm not! You can also vote in the new poll: "Are Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds cricket's worst whiners?"

Labels: australia, ban, Commonwealth Bank Series, icc, india, match referee, over rates, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:41 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The ones who get away, and those who don't

I've seen several quotes in the Australian media about how the likes of Harbhajan, Ganguly, etc. have been so frequent visitors to the match referees' rooms, unlike Australian players, which proved that Australia plays the game 'hard and fair'. Sample this gem from Mark Waugh. Keep in mind that 'Junior' has said a few stupid things in the recent past for us to not take his words completely at face value.

And in terms of sledging, certainly a couple of Australian players can take it over the top on some occasions - but overall, they aren't too bad when you look at the fines and penalties for each country.

The statement indicates to me that Australia's cricketers, despite going over the top on some occasions, don't get pulled up by ICC match referees. How about using some data to strengthen the hypothesis? I documented all the various rulings by ICC match referees listed in the 'ICC Code of Conduct hearings and their outcomes' section of the ICC website from 1992 (when the code was introduced) to 2007. Some aspects of the analysis that need to be mentioned:

• Penalties imposed for logo violations were excluded.
  
• The outcome is purely based on the instances reported on the website. There would be several occasions where the match referee has dozed off. Such issues aren't captured in this analysis. For e.g., McGrath v Sarwan, over-rate issues, such as in the 2005 Ashes, on England's 2006 tour of India and the recently concluded India-Australia series (India was the only team to average 14 overs an hour in a single inning. Australia twice bowled less than 13 an hour. Across the tests, India averaged 13.4 overs an hour while Australia averaged 13.2 overs an hour).
  
• There's no categorization based on the size of the penalty (match fee percentage or number of games).
  
• Any instance of multiple penalties (match fee fine + game ban) is categorized in the higher penalty (game ban). Suspended sentences count as reprimands, unless there is a financial penalty, in which case it gets categorized as a match fee fine.
  
• I'm almost certain I've accounted for all the non-logo issue match referee decisions, but the accuracy of the data could be linked to the fact that this post is going up at around 2 am!

There have been a total of 291 hearings by match referees: 29 of those resulted in a ban (one or more internationals), 22 resulted in a not guilty verdict, 63 finished up with a reprimand (including instances where the penalty was a suspended sentence) and 177 ended with financial penalties imposed on the player/official.

2001 was the busiest year (35 players pulled up), with 2004 and 2005 seeing 33 players pulled up. 2002 seems to have been an abnormally quiet year (6 visits). Perhaps the players used up their quotas in 2001!

Inzamam leads the players list (12 times, with 3 bans). At #2 is another perennial favourite, Sourav Ganguly (10 times, with 4 bans). Since Inzamam is now retired, Ganguly is very well placed to get to #1. Glenn McGrath, Graeme Smith and Shoaib Akhtar have 6 visits to their names. Special mentions for Sreesanth, who made his test debut in 2006 but notched up 3 visits to the ref in the span of 1.5 years and Graeme Smith, who debuted in 2002 and has already been hauled up 6 times, including 2 bans!

Pakistan leads with 56 visits to the ref's room, India is 2nd with 49, Australia is 3rd with 37, just ahead of South Africa's 36. I believe it is sufficient to consider the data in the context of these teams alone, primarily since the percentages could get skewed with teams who don't see the refs too often. Special mentions for West Indies and Sri Lanka who only got called to the refs' rooms 20 and 19 times. Over a data set of 15 years, that is a very good indicator that these two teams are fairly ... fair!

In terms of match referee verdicts where there was no penalty (financial or ban), Australia is a clear-cut winner. On nearly 30% of the occasions (29.7% - 11 out of 37), there was either a reprimand or a 'not guilty' verdict. The percentage of times Pakistan, South Africa and India were not penalized was fairly similar (25%, 22.2% and 26.5% respectively). Among those 4 teams, Australia's cricketers were banned the fewest times (5.4% - 2 out of 37, one of them being Darren Lehmann) while Pakistan copped it hardest (23.2% - 13 out of 56). Interestingly enough, South Africa copped it worse (13.9% bans - 5 out of 36) than India (10.2% bans - 5 out of 49).

To me, this is an indication that Australia does get away with it more often than others. Plus, there're probably umpteen other instances where the match referee, umpires or the ICC didn't even get to laying down charges. I'm not saying that this isn't likely for other teams, but based on the number of times Australia have not been penalized that is the inference I draw.

Glenn McGrath was found guilty of spitting at an opponent in 1999, and paid up 30% of his match fee. On another occasion, Damien Fleming pushed a Sri Lankan batsman after dismissing him. He paid up 50%. Then there was Slater losing it against Dravid despite the third umpire ruling not-out. In 2004, Langer was ruled not guilty despite dislodging a bail himself and then appealing for a hit-wicket in a match against Sri Lanka.

I believe it is high time the cricketing world called the bluff on Australia playing 'hard and fair' and hence not being taken to task by match referees. If India's financial clout has resulted in the board resorting to brinkmanship on a number of occasions, Australia's cricketing clout has potentially resulted in match referees looking the other way when Australia's players flout the rules, or letting them off with a 'Naughty boy. Don't do it again, ok?' warning.

Labels: australia, ban, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, match referee, over rates, pakistan, south africa, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:01 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Will the match ref step in please?

There's absolute carnage going on in the Australia v New Zealand opening one-dayer of this season's Chappell-Hadlee series.

Chasing 255 in 50 overs, Australia are 58/0 in 6 overs.

The match referee should be empowered to step in and declare Australia winner by knockout.

Then again, that'd mean around 80% of Australia's, Zimbabwe's and Bangladesh's games are declared knockouts by the 10th over, and that includes test cricket!

Labels: chappell, chappell-hadlee, hadlee, match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:30 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Put him out of his misery - Ban Sreesanth for a game or two

Sreesanth has stepped across the line far too often in the recent past to get away with it now.

In December last year during India's tour of South Africa, he copped a fine for giving a send-off to Hashim Amla. Then, during India's tour of England recently, he bowled a beamer to Pietersen and barged into Michael Vaughan. During the Twenty20 World Cup, he was hauled up for excessive appealing.

That is a lot of antics in a little less than a year. Is he India's Andre Nel?

I have no problems with people being aggressive on the field, provided they don't get personal/abusive. Speaking of which, I feel revolted whenever I lip-read India's cricketers mouthing '*-chod' abuses either at the opposition or just screaming out in exhilaration. If we have reason to feel aggrieved when others hurl '*-f@cker' abuses, then it is time to introspect, for India's cricketers are no better worse in this regard.

Coming back to Sreesanth, he definitely has the ability. Can he channelize his aggression properly and not continue to make an ass of himself? What's the point in showing your aggression when you've conceded 7 runs an over in a one-day game? What's the point in giving any batsman a send-off? He's out and he can't do you any more damage! Yes, one possibility is that you genuinely believe that he's had far too many lives during his knock. But even then, there's no point in abusing him after he has exhausted his luck!

The time is now right for the ICC match referee to step in and ban Sreesanth for a game or two. Besides, like I was telling Ganesh a week or so ago, Sreesanth should only be allowed to play in alternate games. He rarely, if ever, strings together two consecutively good bowling performances anyway.

Labels: ban, icc, india, match referee, sreesanth

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:45 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Life's a pitch

To the best of my knowledge, the ICC only has guidelines some nonsense spouted on what constitutes a good wicket for test cricket. There's nothing mentioned about one-day cricket.

CNN-IBN & CricketNext report that a couple of captains and match referee Madugalle have complained about the pitch at the Brabourne stadium for one of the ICC Champions Trophy games.

I am certainly not complaining. I'm loving these low-scoring games. They're far more fascinating to follow than 'Team A 350/8 in 50 overs lost to Team B 351/5 in 47 overs' type of games.

The ICC insisted that venues which would host games in this tournament should not have any advertising/sponsorships associated with them which would conflict with the ICC's official sponsors. As a result, venues like Eden Gardens, Wankhede stadium, Chinnaswamy stadium and MA Chidambaram stadium were left out and Mohali, Ahmedabad, Brabourne (Bombay) and Jaipur were drafted in and allocated games. Given the volume of games at each venue (5 for the first three venues and 6 for Jaipur), the rainy season having ended in most parts of India a month or so ago and the frequency of games (albeit being played on different pitches), it was but natural that the pitches wouldn't be great for batting. Just as bowlers are resigned to encountering batting wickets in one-dayers, perhaps the batsmen also need to reconcile themselves to the fact that the only time they can get scores of 280 and above is when they're facing a pathetic bowling lineup.

The BCCI really ought to make it clear to the ICC that it doesn't think low-scoring games are bad for one-day cricket and that it was the ICC's intransigence which has ensured that the games are being played in tier-2 cricket grounds (aside from Mohali, which is tier-1 and Brabourne, which is tier-7 and last hosted a one-dayer more than a decade ago).

Labels: 2006 champions trophy, champions trophy, match referee, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:10 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Conflict of interest

I wonder if the ICC would intervene if Broad senior ended up being a match referee for a game involving Broad junior.

Is there an explicit clause somewhere in any of the ICC's codes of conduct which would prevent such an obvious conflict of interest?

Labels: conflict of interest, match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:28 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC to think 'out of the box'

Following Ranjan Madugalle's inability to chair the code of conduct hearing against Inzamam for his part in le fiasco à l'Ovale (Try translating 'the fiasco at The Oval' into French), and Pakistan upping the ante by insisting on a quick hearing, the ICC will be hard-pressed to locate a match referee who can handle the hearing.

If Madugalle can't make it, the ICC needs to pick one from Chris Broad, Jeff Crowe, Alan Hurst, Clive Lloyd, Roshan Mahanama, Mike Procter and Javagal Srinath. We can straightaway rule out Alan Hurst and Clive Lloyd since they'd be of the same nationality as one of the umpires involved. We also rule out Mike Procter since he was in charge of the game. Javagal Srinath is far too new to be handling this inquiry.

This leaves us with Chris Broad, Jeff Crowe and Roshan Mahanama. Chris Broad once ensured that his shoes were stuck to the pitch in Pakistan, which explained why he refused to get on his bike and ride away to the pavillion even after being given out.

So who among Jeff Crowe and Roshan Mahanama will it be?

I've got a much better option for them: This chap, who hated umpires may be acceptable to Pakistan!

Labels: ball tampering, match referee, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:46 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A lot of questions and no answers

There's been nothing short of high farce played out over the last couple of hours at The Oval after the tea break. Pakistan went into the break facing charges of altering with the condition of the ball. Obviously incensed at the accusation, the team refused to come back on the field.

The only other time I've seen something similar was Ranatunga leading his team to the edge of the ground at Adelaide in 1999 after umpire Ross Emerson had called Murali for chucking.

The umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, came out. The two not-out England batsmen, Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood, also came out. After waiting for the Pakistan team, the two umpires chatted with the batsmen and knocked down the bails. The cameras kept focussing on the Pakistan dressing room. Kamran Akmal didn't have pads or gloves on and was reading the newspaper. That was a sure indication that Pakistan weren't playing ball. Shahryar Khan, the PCB chairman and the head of the ECB (I think) went into the Pakistan dressing room and a few minutes later, thumbs up signs were shown, indicating that the issue was close to resolution.

Inzamam then came out with the rest of his side. They went onto the field but then realized that neither the umpires nor the two England batsmen were following them. In fact, they ought to have figured it out earlier. Teams go onto the field only after the umpires do. So they were only making some sort of a point by going on the field although the umpires weren't in sight.

They threw the ball around for a while and then returned to the dressing room. It was obvious that the two umpires were now protesting. Whether it was Darrell Hair who refused to go back or if it was a collective decision by both umpires is as yet unknown. After this, there was really no chance of play, especially since the light had also faded.

So now here're the questions. Where're the answers?

• Was the ball actually tampered with?
  
• If so, did the umpires see someone do it, or were they merely basing their judgement on how they saw the ball at a specific point in time?
  
• Does the act of the umpires, i.e. charging the Pakistan team with altering the condition of the ball, amount to an accusation of cheating?
  
• Do the umpires have to necessarily point out exactly who they saw fingering around with the ball? If the issue were taken to court, could lack of evidence on TV prove that Pakistan didn't tamper with the ball?
  
• If the ICC's code of conduct is applied, will the entire Pakistan team be charged under a Level 2 offence, assuming that there's no evidence against one specific individual?
  
• Should Pakistan have actually just conceded the match, thereby ensuring that their protest was amply reflected?
  
• What did Pakistan hope to achieve by not coming out and then coming back on the field?
  
• Where did they get that ball, which they were playing around with on the field, from? I thought the ball would have been in the possession of the umpires.
  
• Even if the umpires had come back, would they have offered the light to the batsmen?
  
• Why doesn't the ICC rules of mobile phones in dressing rooms apply? We saw so many folks chatting on their mobile phones.
  
• How would some of these players, Mike Atherton, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, have felt, given they've been at the receiving end of ball-tampering controversies earlier?
  
• What is match referee Mike Procter's role? Why didn't he get Inzamam, Strauss, Doctrove and Hair together to sort it out rather than wait for Pakistan's dressing room meeting to finish?
  
• Does the umpires' act of taking the bails off indicate the game is over? I think not. The bails being taken off indicate an end/abandonment of play for the moment (rain break/bad light/end of a session etc.). End of the game is when the stumps are uprooted (by the umpires and by the victorious team, if any!)
  
• Why hasn't the ICC even bothered to make some sort of a statement on this issue, at least to let viewers/spectators know what's going on?
  
• Why didn't ESPN go to a single advertisement break?
  
• The last time a ball tampering controversy erupted big-time, an England-India test series was nearly cancelled. What about this match? What about the forthcoming one-dayers?

So who's to blame? Vote in the poll.

Labels: ball tampering, hair, match referee, oval 2006

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:55 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What is a substandard pitch?

A few days after I questioned how no one bothers when a wicket favours only the batsmen, the ICC has announced a pitch monitoring process. The media release says

The Board has also proposed the first formal pitch-monitoring process for international cricket. This process, which has been adopted with immediate effect, includes potential sanctions ranging from a formal warning to a Member board fine or even suspension of international status for venues that produce substandard pitches.

The process is be based on the initial report of the Emirates Elite Panel Referee at the ground followed by a review conducted by the ICC General Manager - Cricket, David Richardson, and the Chief Match Referee, Ranjan Madugalle (or the Chairman of the Cricket Committee, Sunil Gavaskar, if the Chief Referee produced the initial report). An appeals process is available to the relevant Member board.

I hope their definition of a 'substandard pitch' also includes ones where the word bowler refers to that tribe whose presence is merely to let the ball go so that the batsman can do whatever he wants with it, since the pitch can easily be taken out of the equation.

The other interesting announcement was about the ICC deciding to adopt an anti-doping policy compliant with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code, beginning from the Champions Trophy later this year.

An unnamed wag source tells us that such a policy would perhaps result in Shane Warne reconsidering the consideration he is giving to returning to one-dayers.

Labels: match referee, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:55 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Madugalle fines Indian team for not appealing

In a bizarre ruling, probably the first of its kind in international cricket, match referee Ranjan Madugalle has fined the entire Indian team 5% of their match fee, imposed an additional 5% penalty on India's four main bowlers as well as part-timer Sourav Ganguly and an additional 5% penalty on Indian captain Rahul Dravid.

The reason: Not appealing. Madugalle rubbed salt into the Indian team's wounds when he justified his decision by pointing out that India barely got into Pakistan's middle-order on day one of the Lahore test. The first wicket fell through a run-out about which none of the Indian fielders were enthusiastic about except for Yuvraj Singh, who threw the stumps down to catch Salman Butt short.The second wicket involved a fairly obvious catch by Harbhajan Singh.

Previous instances of match referees taking players for not appealing: Broad fines Hoggard, Procter reprimands Nehra, Broad fines Balaji and Jeff Crowe fines Ntini and Langeveldt.

Note: I really ought to have qualified this post as 'sarcasm', but I couldn't bother to do so because I have to rush to catch a train now!

Labels: match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:00 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Chucking report card: Harbhajan cleared and Shabbir hauled up

It certainly sounds like deja vu, but Harbhajan's bowling action was cleared by the ICC, again. Marc Portus, the bio-mechanics expert who worked on analyzing his action, felt that while there were several differences between Harbhajan's bowling action in the India-Pakistan series and when he was examined at the University of Western Australia, a conclusion could not be reached because of different footage quality and camera angles. The caveat with the latest move by the ICC to clear his action is that he must bowl with an action consistent with that demonstrated during his tests at UWA. The possibility that he could be called for chucking again in future is not ruled out.

After Harbhajan Singh was reported in Bangladesh, he was referred to Bruce Elliott, from the University of Western Australia. On the basis of tests conducted there, his action, possibly specifically the doosra, was cleared.

Effectively the ICC wants Harbhajan to bowl the same sort of delivery again and again. All it would require for opposition coaches, captains, analysts and batsmen is to obtain the complete footage of his tests at the university. They would be able to devise plans to counter his bowling since he is now restricted.

Since the eleventh commandment has already been declared by spectators at Sabina Park to be "Dowe shalt not bowl", perhaps the twelfth commandment, as decreed by the ICC, is that "Harbhajan shall bowl at the exact speed of 84.31 kph with his two feet pointing away from each other at precisely 12.53 degrees". What they're effectively doing is telling him how exactly he must bowl. This will just destroy the youngster's career. They might as well have banned him from playing any further. At least his record would still be intact. Now it is not inconceivable that he slips from nearly 200 wkts at an avg of 28 to 250 wickets at an avg of 35 and quits the game in disgust.

Pakistan's woes did not end with a thrashing at Bridgetown in spite of bowling out West Indies on the first day. Shabbir Ahmed, who took 5 wickets in the game, was reported for an illegal bowling action by match referee Ranjan Madugalle. Being reported isn't an uncommon occurence for Shabbir either. He was first reported on debut, incidentally against West Indies. Last year, he was reported in New Zealand.

His action will be studied by a member of the ICC's panel of human movement specialists and then a report will be submitted indicating if his action exceeds that measurable by the ICC's official stationery device, sponsored by LG Electronics. He will be allowed to play international cricket, as long as his board wants him to.

Meanwhile there are reports coming out of Pakistan that all is not quite well in the camp. Shahid Afridi clashed with Younis Khan over his batting position during the first test.

Labels: chucking, match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:56 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sourav Ganguly banned for six one-dayers

Match referee Chris Broad announced that Indian captain Sourav Ganguly had been banned for six one-day internationals for violating sections of the ICC Code of Conduct since his bowlers did not complete their quota of 48 overs within the prescribed time limits during yesterday's close match at Ahmedabad. It may be recalled that he was fined 70% of his match fee at Jamshedpur.

Seen in isolation, Ganguly copped the fine because he was clearly unable to ensure that his bowlers and fielders wasted as little time as possible during Pakistan's innings. The fact that he did not question Broad's decision or offer excuses means that he knew he was at fault. Well, lets put it this way: The Indian team was at fault and since the captain is responsible for the actions of his team members, he will have to take the blame. Ganguly is not a first-time offender and he knows the repercussions of a slow over-rate, having come very close to being banned last year. The ICC went by its rules, and in any mature system, what is of paramount importance is following the rule of law. I completely support the decision because I have also earlier argued in these columns the need for teams to bowl more overs in a day's play. Rod Marsh has expressed concern about falling over rates and his issues need to be addressed in a firm manner by the ICC.

That said, my concerns on the ICC's inherent inconsistencies still remain. I can think of a few instances in the recent past which bolster my argument that the ICC's officials and systems do not act consistently.

During the second one-dayer at Vishakapatnam, Inzamam and Razzaq were involved in a mixup which caused Inzamam's runout, and thereby possibly ensured that Pakistan lost the game. People who saw Inzamam's reaction when he returned to the pavillion are convinced that he actually did throw his bat, in spite of his coach's assertions that the bat slipped out of his hands. For what he did, Inzamam got away with a reprimand. Perhaps Broad was nostalgic about his playing days.

There's of course the ongoing saga of Harbhajan being called for chucking again in spite of the ICC clearing him.

Michael Vaughan was fined his entire match fee for implying that the umpires were inconsistent in deciding about bad light conditions when England were on tour in South Africa.

Danish Kaneria was fined his entire match fee in spite of not having any history of being called up by the match referee in total contrast to Andrew Hall being let off even though he had been invited by the match referee on a couple of occassions, presumably to discuss the weather.

Sehwag copped a 65% fine for showing displeasure at being given out lbw when there was an obvious inside edge. But in discovering the new spirit of walking, a few Australian cricketers obviously did not agree to the umpire ruling them not-out. Nothing was done about those instances.

Glenn McGrath's past history did not come into the picture at all when he was let off with a paltry fine for swearing after an lbw appeal was turned down.

Then you have Darren Lehmann saying that he was disappointed with the way his racial abuse issue was handled.

Once again, the ICC's choice of match referees is totally bizarre. Chris Broad adjudicates on equipment abuse while Clive Lloyd rules on slow over-rates.

The ICC definitely needs to clean its own stables. If it continues to be inconsistent, it is bound to lose the respect of the players, commentators and fans.

Labels: match referee, over rates

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:20 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]