Exhibit A
Munaf Patel, the Indian fast bowler, has been fined 75% of his match fee for a breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during the second ODI against Sri Lanka in Dambulla.
Munaf was found guilty of a Level 2 offence by match referee Chris Broad at a hearing following the conclusion of the match won by India by three wickets. Munaf was found to have breached clause 2.8 of the Code which refers to "using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another player, umpire, referee, team official or spectator."
The incident related to remarks made by the player to umpire Gamini Silva after the official turned down an lbw appeal. During the course of the hearing Munaf pleaded not guilty to the charge but did admit to speaking aggressively to the umpire.
"I accept that in international cricket there is a lot of passion but that does not excuse players talking back to umpires in an aggressive manner, as happened in this case," Broad said. "That is unacceptable and I hope this decision and the fine imposed demonstrates that fact."
The incident in question -
16.3 Patel to Kulasekara, no run, huge huge shout for lbw from the Indians. It cut in from a length outside off , beat the waft and hit the back pad right in front.of the off stump. The umpire perhaps thought it had hit the bat. There was no edge, though. Hold on the umpires are on the walkie talkie. It can't be about the decision, can it. No reviews here. Anyway game resumes. Kulasekara is lucky to survive there
----
Exhibit B
Having struck with his second ball of the match to remove Graeme Smith, Flintoff needed three attempts to see off Neil McKenzie - after a drop from Paul Collingwood and a reprieve-by-referral after Andrew Strauss's low catch at slip - before Aleem Dar delivered the not-out verdict that lit a furnace of indignation within the most mild-mannered of strike bowlers. Incredulity, closely followed by incandescence, was Flintoff's reaction when Jacques Kallis, on 55, was struck flush on the toe, plumb in front of middle stump, and with the bat not even close to the action. He appealed, then pleaded, then demanded, and at the end of the over, could still be heard giving Dar an earful as the pair moved to their positions at square leg.
Flintoff's reaction was entirely out of character, and he quickly apologised at the close, but as Kallis would testify, he backed up his furious words with even more livid deeds. "My emotion was running quite high," said Flintoff, "but you can chunter as much as you want, you've just got to get on with it.
The incident in question here
66.5 Flintoff to Kallis, no run, another fast yorker, hits the toe and that's plumb. Surely. No! My word - Kallis has escaped there. Flintoff is furious.
---
And then they expect us to respect the office of the Match Referee?
PS:-
Per the ICC code of conduct
The Offences set out at 1.1 to 1.7 below are Level 1 Offences. The penalty for a Level 1 Offence shall be an official reprimand and/or a fine of up to the equivalent of 50% of the Player or Official’s match fee (as determined in accordance with sections I (3) and I (4).
1.4 Using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting and/or the making of an obscene gesture
and the ICC explanation is
This includes swearing and obscene gestures which are not directed at another person such as swearing in frustration at one’s own poor play or fortune.
and
The Offences set out at 2.1 to 2.11 below are Level 2 Offences. The Penalty for a Level 2 Offence shall be a fine of the equivalent of between 50% of the Player or Official’s match fee up to their full match fee and/or a 1 Test Match or 2 ODI Match ban
2.8 Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another Player,
umpire, Referee, Team Official or spectator. (It is acknowledged that there will be verbal
exchanges between Players in the course of play. Rather than seeking to eliminate these
exchanges entirely, umpires will look to lay charges when this falls below an acceptable standard.
In this instance, language will be interpreted to include gestures).
and the ICC explanation is
This is any language or gesture which is directed at another person or persons. In exercising his
judgement as to whether the behaviour has fallen below an acceptable standard, the umpire seeking to lay a charge shall be required to take into account the context of the particular situation and whether the words or gesture are likely to:
• be regarded as obscene; or
• give offence; or
• insult another person.
This offence is not intended to penalise trivial behaviour. The extent to which such behaviour is
likely to give offence shall be taken into account when assessing the seriousness of the breach.
Now, I saw every ball of the game, including this particular incident. And I have seen worse on the field of play. Munaf himself has contested the charge.
And yet, Chris Broad deems it fair to charge the player. On the basis of what exactly?