de Villiers, who was batting on 46, began his walk back to the pavilion after having a word with the umpires.Erm, whatever happened to the umpire's decision being final? And whatever happened to players accepting the umpires word without murmur?
Does dissent mean different things to different people ? In different contexts?
And if not, what is the ICC going to do about this?
Updates:-
International Cricket Council match referee Jeff Crowe visited the Indian dressing room minutes before the game against Australia at the Adelaide Oval on Sunday.
He wasn’t there to get autographs but to discuss couple of issues with team’s assistant coach Lalchand Rajput.
“Crowe isn’t happy with the time Indian batsmen were taking to get on the field after a wicket fell so he has asked us to make sure that the batsmen crossed each other on the field.” The Australians, it’s believed, had protested with the match referee and he was taking up the issue with the Indians.
Rajput politely reminded Crowe that the Australians too were taking their time and it would be in interest of both teams if they too showed some urgency.
Meanwhile, the Indians want the on field umpires to do away with their white hats when they’re facing Lasith Malinga.
Rajput requested Crowe during the same discussion but the match referee wasn’t willing to listen.
“The batsmen can’t pick the ball coming out from Lasith Malinga’s hand as it comes over the umpire’s hat. We requested him to ask the umpires to wear something of different colour but he says he’s not in a position to do it. Which is a bit strange considering he’s the match referee,” said Rajput.
Malinga, the games only slinger, has befuddled many batsmen with his odd bowling action.
---
Jeff Crowe’s seems to have got into a habit of visiting the Indian team’s dressing room. The International Cricket Council’s match referee dropped in during the Australian innings at the Sydney Cricket Ground and asked coach-in-charge Lalchand Rajput to send another pair of wicketkeeping gloves for M S Dhoni.
Dhoni had pulled off a stunning one-handed catch from an Adam Gilchrist inside edge diving to his right and that is when the Australians and the match referee sighted the curved webbings between the thumb and the index finger of Dhoni’s gloves which the match referee perceived is contrary to what Law 40.2 of the game states.
Once Crowe threw the book on the Indians, substitute Praveen Kumar walked out with another pair of gloves with flatter webbing.
----
then the equally hot-headed Andrew Symonds was at the centre of a petty outburst. ----
Ishant Sharma has been summoned by Match Referee Jeff Crowe for a disciplinary hearing on Monday morning after a face-off with Australian allrounder Andrew Symonds.
The hearing will be held at the team hotel.
----And now, there are reports on TV that Ishant Sharma has been fined 15% of his match fees.
--
18 comments:
Today he took his helmet off against the deshi's openers and went out next ball.
He may get nominated for South African of the year.
Sorry got it wrong, it was McKenzie who took off the helmet.
Those white guys all look the same to me.
what is the ICC going to do about this? - nothing.
Please adjust maadi
To elucidate my earlier cryptic comment, ICC's response may be thus...
Please adjust maadi, kindly adjust maadi
Uncle J,
Indeed :)
Cheers
Ottayan,
More than the ICC doing nothing, it is the arbitrariness in their decision making that is galling. If the ICC did nothing and was consistent in doing nothing, I would not have an issue - it is just that the ICC officials seem to act when the players concerned are from one geography and/or color.
Cheers
SB,
Question is - why? Why should we adjust maadi when we pay the bloody bills ?
If you and I, as fans, turn away from this game, good luck ICC in trying to make a single naya paisa, let alone profits!
Cheers
Gentlemen,
Aren't we forgetting the all knowing Pricky in this entire saga. He is a RHB, Oz captain (thats what he says on TV when he comes to bat).. But he is also the umpire(when adjudging SG caught) and Match Referee (asking the umpires to intervene after the Symo dismissal).. Peter Roebuck it seems has written about a run that he didnt take because he didn't want to win at all costs. Shri Roebuck seems to have overlooked Pricky's penchant to run to the ump/ match referee at the drop of a hat.. Given he wears so many hats, think its easier for him to enact it..
cheers
BTW AB said that he knew the rule but just hoped that somebody would say ' you are not out son'..
What does that amount to?
Spot on Namya...Maybe is it really time for the BCCI to flex those muscles we keep reading about in the media - if they can ensure consistency in the way the game is adjudicated, we will all be better off.
Cheers
Regarding the Ishant Sharma Fine
Below are two quotes. The first from the Express India reporting the Indian teams manager complaint about the Australian team and the second from the Mid day Express.
They are totaly contradictory either:-
The manager is misrepresenting his player
or the player lied to the manager
or the manager is trying to mislead the public & the ICC
or the manager doesn’t know what is going on
or the player lied to the match referee.
Of course there is one other option. The reporter got it wrong, no doubt they will seek a retraction.
When I first saw the replay I saw Symonds head snap back as if in reaction to words, he then replied (wrongly I believe) then Sharma gave the big send off. This is what Ponting said and in light of the quotes I know who I choose to believe
The manager
“Our plea was Symonds provoked Ishant and that’s why he did what he did,” said Soni. “The match referee has promised he would have a word with the Australian captain on the matter.” Ishant was called up for hearing by Crowe this morning in Sydney after the two umpires lodged a complaint about the Indian’s gesture towards Symonds, who was bowled for 59 in the 45th over of the Australian innings in Sunday’s match at the SCG.
The Player
Quote from Mid Day Express reporter Debasish Datta
“For the last few Tests, I have been learning to bowl the slower delivery from Venkatesh (Prasad). And the moment I deceived Symonds with one, I wanted to thank him. That is why I was pointing towards the dressing room,” Sharma apparently told Crowe.
Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments...
Since when did "apparently" translate to "definitely"?
No one knows for sure what transpired behind closed doors and all that we have is speculation and conjecture.
And since when did speculation and conjecture translate into the unvarnished truth?
I saw the same visuals you did..
And while I cannot question your prerogative to believe in whoever you think is right and wrong in this affair, I have a strong feeling that, in this case, we may not be in agreement.
Cheers
Firstly, Sorry for using the Anonymous tag. I hit the wrong button so I'll stay with it
Secondly, Thank you for the courtesy of both the language of your reply and the reply yourself. It seems to be a quality lacking by so many at present
Thirdly. Given these closed door hearings leak like a sieve and that the quote has not been denied I would argue that it's probably on the money, particulary as it is from an Indian source.
The original article raises the issue of consistency.
Accepting that Symonds did verbal Ishant there is a vast gulf between what he did/said and the highly visible histrionics of Ishant.On that basis the modest fine imposed is reasonable. Perhaps Symonds should have been cited as well perhaps not. It's a subjective judgement.
The fact is all judicial systems are inconsistent.
In any event this inconsistancy has benefitted India.
Why was H Singh not cited for his ridiculous monkey roll in Sydney
Why was Khartik not cited for obvious dissent on a bad pad catch. Even worse given the umpire was dead right
Why was he not cited for spitting as they left the field.
You win some, you lose some.That's life
Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments and your kind words.
The game of cricket is played under certain rules and laws - these rules and laws are universal and applicable to all cricketers, whether in Uganda or in India.
The crux of the problem is when the people authorized to implement these rules and uphold the laws do so in an ad hoc manner.
When due process and natural justice take the backseat to the judge's biases, what faith does one repose in the system?
And when there is an erosion of faith in the system, a sense of victimhood develops.
And when there is a sense of victimhood, there is always going to be a reaction.
Over the course of the Australian summer, there have been too many episodes, some very blatant and public and others more subtle.
Indians have been cited for 45 violations of the ICC law, we are told.
But what about when others break the same rules?
Why do some people get away with a slap on the wrist while others are condemned to hard labor for the same crime?
You and I can go on debating the merits and demerits of the decisions and judgements made over the Australian summer, but the question is , why?
Mal Speed goes blue in the face when no action is taken against Yuvraj for dissent in the Melbourne test. But there is nary a peep from anyone whatsoever when AB DeVilliers blantantly dissents in Bangladesh.
Should the book have been thrown at Yuvraj? Most definately.
But what about Mr DeVilliers?
Win some, lose some is a fine way to look at things as there is the possibility of winning some..
Thing is, for as long as I have been watching cricket,the whole implementation of the laws are skewed against people of certain geographies. And unless the imbalance is corrected, we are going to see a lot more of the incidents of the type witnessed during the Australian summer.
And the twain wont ever meet.
Cheers
if the debate/conversation between is is about whether te ball hit high or in line of the stumps and whether the LBW call was the right one or not, all if fine with the world.
But if the debate/conversation is about an umpire soliciting advise from the opposition captain on whether a catch was taken or not, we are on a slippery slope..
Cheers
Homer,
You'll get no argument from me that the standards of officiating & officialdom need to improve but I'll not concede that there is no chance of picking up a win.
I cited examples in my previous comment where Indian players did get away with it.
As they say in investing we always feel the losses more than the gains.
Anyway it would seem CA will be taking action against Hayden. I feel he should get three games
for making rude, tactless and stupid remarks at a time of high tension
One for being stupid
One for being rude
One for being tactless
Kind regards
The technology challenged Anonymous ( no relation to Mickey Mouse)
The technology challenged Anonymous (tm),
Major gains versus minor losses and major losses versus minor gains - in what context will the losses pinch more?
---
Just a mild slap on the wrist and a lot of sanctimony in the aftermath of Hayden's remarks.
Surprising? Hardly :).
Cheers :)
Post a Comment