INDIA VS. REST OF THE WORLD

NOTE: All the information on the cases mentioned in this blog post (except for the last one) comes from a singular source - this page on the official website of the International Cricket Council (ICC). Thank you to @HomerTweets for tweeting this link.

NOTE AGAIN: I have just quoted whatever information I deemed was relevant from the above-mentioned webpage. Whatever comments I wanted to make have been made after all the cases have been quoted.

So here goes...

Case 1: South Africa v India, 3rd Test, January 5, 2011, Cape Town

"Sreesanth kicked the boundary kicked the boundary rope after his two LBW appeals were turned down in the previous over. A charge was brought by Ian Gould and Simon Taufel of the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires, third umpire Brian Jerling and fourth umpire Shaun George. Action: Sreesanth pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". Sreesanth has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee.Sreesanth accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing."

Case 2: Australia v Zimbabwe, 21st Feb, Ahmedabad

"Roshan Mahanama of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees charged Australia captain Ricky Ponting after an incident was brought to the ICC's attention through the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Gujarat Cricket Association. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by the chairman of the Event Technical Committee David Richardson on behalf of the ICC Chief Executive, in accordance with the regulations. The incident occurred shortly after Ponting was run out in the match when he caused some damage to a television set in the team dressing room. The damage occurred when he threw down a piece of equipment which bounced off his kit bag and hit the corner of the television. Action: Ponting accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction. He was officially reprimanded. As Ponting accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 3: India v England, 27th Feb, Bengaluru

"The incident took place on the last ball of the 49th over when Tim Bresnan, after he was clean bowled by Piyush Chawla, hit the stumps with his bat. Bresnan pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Bowden and Marais Erasmus, third umpire Rod Tucker and fourth umpire Aleem Dar who are all from the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires. Action: As Bresnan accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and/or a maximum penalty of the imposition of a fine up to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 4: Bangladesh v England, 12th Mar, Chittagong

"England off-spinner Graeme Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' The charge was brought by on-field umpires Rod Tucker and Daryl Harper and third umpire Aleem Dar, all from the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires. Action: Swann pleaded guilty to the charge and as such, under the provisions of the code, the matter was determined by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees and so there was no requirement for a full hearing. Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' He was fined 10 per cent of his match fees."

Case 5: England v Sri Lanka, 2-6 June, Lord's

"England wicketkeeper Matt Prior was reprimanded for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's Test match against Sri Lanka at Lord's. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Rod Tucker as well as third umpire Aleem Dar and fourth official Richard Illingworth. The incident occurred shortly after Prior was run out in the match when his actions caused the window to break. Action: Prior accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction from Javagal Srinath of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees after an incident where a window was broken in the England team dressingroom. As Prior accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 6: West Indies v India, 20-24 June, Kingston, Jamaica

"India spinner Amit Mishra has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee for a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's first Test against the West Indies in Jamaica. Mishra was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to "showing dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Ian Gould and Daryl Harper as well as third umpire Norman Malcolm. Action: After play concluded on day two, the player accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and a maximum penalty of 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 7: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham

"India bowler Praveen Kumar has been fined 20 per cent of his match fee after pleading guilty to a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during England's innings on the first day of the second Test at Trent Bridge, Nottingham. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 18th over of the day during which Kumar had an appeal for leg before wicket against England batsman Kevin Pietersen turned down and at the end of the over he then engaged in a debate with umpire Marais Erasmus about the decision. Action: Kumar was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the umpire about his decision. After play concluded for the day, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle the chief referee of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus and third umpire Billy Bowden of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires as well as fourth umpire Tim Robinson."

Case 8: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham (Source)

"Graeme Swann has been reprimanded for a level one breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during the second day of the second Test match between England and India at Trent Bridge. Swann was found to have breached Article 2.1.2 of the code which relates to abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match. After play concluded, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle, the chief referee of the Emirates elite panel of ICC match referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires, Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus, as well as third umpire Billy Bowden, of the Emirates elite panel of ICC umpires, and fourth umpire Tim Robinson. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 80th over of the India innings when the England bowler kicked the stumps in frustration and dislodged the bails. He immediately apologised to the on-field umpires for his actions."

Now, here are a few points to note:

1. Sreesanth (Case 1), Ponting (Case 2), Bresnan (Case 3), Prior (Case 5) and Swann (Case 8) were all pulled up for the same offence, i.e. "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". Ponting, Bresnan, Prior and Swann were reprimanded. Sreesanth was fined 10% of his match fees. And though this isn't necessary, I should mention that kicking a boundary rope does not result in as much monetary damage as breaking a television or a window.

2. Mishra (Case 6) and Kumar (Case 7) were fined 10% and 20% of their match fees respectively for breaching Article 2.1.3. The Article 2.1.3 includes (pdf):

"(a) excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision; (b) an obvious delay in resuming play or leaving the wicket; (c) shaking the head; (d) pointing or looking at the inside edge when given out lbw; (e) pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when caught behind; (f) snatching the cap from the Umpire; (g) requesting a referral to the TV Umpire (other than in the context of a legitimate request for a referral as may be permitted in such International Match); and (h) arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision. It shall not be a defence to any charge brought under this Article to show that the Umpire might have, or in fact did, get any decision wrong."

Given what Stuart Broad did on Day 5 of the 1st Test of this series at Lord's, I wonder why that was not classified in clauses (a) and (h) of the above-mentioned Article. Sitting on haunches after an appeal is turned down should easily classify as "excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision" and slipping in a word to the umpire at the end of that over / start of next over about that decision should classify as "arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision". Broad might want to argue that it was not an argument or a prolonged discussion, but if he is talking more than the umpire (for his lips seemed to move more than Billy Bowden's), it is "arguing"; and if that discussion continues at the end of the over, it is a "prolonged discussion".

3. As per Article 7.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct (pdf), if a Level 1 Offence is committed for the second time within a span of 12 months, then the penalty shall be "the imposition of a fine of between 50-100% of the applicable Match Fee and/or two (2) Suspension Points."

Swann was charged of a Level 1 offence (Case 4) on 12th March 2011. Only 4 months and 18 days have passed since that occasion and Swann has been charged with another Level 1 offence (Case 8). So why was he just reprimanded and not fined 50% of his match fees, which is the minimum penalty to be imposed.

And if my aforesaid argument of Broad's behaviour in the 1st Test holds good, then he too should have faced strict sanctions since he has already been pulled up and fined 50% of his match fees for a Level 2 offence on 1st July 2011, merely 29 days ago! Given that the earlier offence was Level 2, I daresay that he should have missed the current Test match at Nottingham!

RANDIV'S SUSPENSION - OVER THE TOP!

Now this is what I call an over-the-top reaction. I have just read the news that Sri Lankan off-spinner Suraj Randiv has been suspended for 1 game and docked off his match fees for bowling the deliberate no-ball that denied Virendra Sehwag his century. And what's more, TM Dilshan has also lost his match fees for being the one who suggested such an act to Randiv.

I have already stated in my blog two days ago and by way of comments on numerous other blogs that the act by Randiv was not right! I don't know about the Spirit of Cricket (no one really knows, but everyone wants to pretend they know)... but it certainly left a sour taste at the end of the match. The match should have been remembered for India's win with more than 15 overs to spare... not for Sehwag's almost-century.

Coming back to the point... the suspension and the fines is too much! Well, Sri Lanka Cricket says that they are proud recipients of ICC's Spirit of Cricket award for two years in a row and that's why they came down hard on this issue. But in their minds, the Sri Lankan officials should know that this was way too hard!

The matter, in my opinion, should have ended with Randiv's apology to Sehwag! Maybe the captain / coach / manager / match referee / Board official should have had a quiet word with Randiv thereafter. At the most, the Board should have given him a slap on the wrist. A one-match suspension is way too much!

I mean, Simon Taufel was not suspended when he gave Sachin Tendulkar out LBW on 99 to a Paul Collingwood delivery that would have missed the off-stump quite easily! He later apologised to Tendulkar, and both got along with it. It was the same with Rudi Koertzen and Kumar Sangakkara when the latter was wrongly adjudged to have edged the ball when on 192. Then why should it be different now?

True, the umpires were not deliberately trying to deny the batsmen their landmarks... but they still did make wrong decisions that did or could have influenced the result of the match. Allow me to insert here that Steve Bucknor was punished for an entire collection of mistakes... not just one! So please do not bring on that angle of the argument over here in this issue.

Back to the point now... it is a sad and a sorry state that Sri Lanka Cricket resorted to acting against their player in a move that seems quite evidently an act to appease the BCCI. I doubt a stronger Board would have taken such an action!

ELBOWGATE PART 2

Not too long ago, an elbow-gate incident had bruised the so-called spirit of cricket... and tongues started lashing everywhere. Another elbow-gate occurred yesterday... right at the home of cricket, Lord's.

I want to draw a comparison between the Shane Watson - Gautam Gambhir incident of October 2008 and the Mohammed Aamer - Ricky Ponting incident of July 2009. So first, I guess one must watch the video of the earlier incident to refresh memories. The video below contains clippings of the instigation as well as the elbow poking action, which attracted the ban for Gambhir.

In both the cases, the batsmen poked their elbows after being instigated by the bowlers. Shane Watson's instigation lasted quite a while. Then when Gambhir clipped a ball off his legs, Watson said something to Gambhir and showed his hand to the batsman when he was taking the first run. So while returning for the second, Gambhir also decided to show his hand a little more closely to Watson... and the result was the 'poke'.

Yesterday, Ponting got out to Mohammed Aamer. Now, Aamer got too close to Ponting at the time of his celebration (an act that we might refer to as instigation)... and Ponting, on his part, shoved his elbow towards Aamer. Ponting may say that he could not avoid physical contact with Aamer as he was too close to him. Granted! But he could have certainly avoided elbowing Aamer. The photograph here clearly shows that Ponting could have avoided the elbowing.

In the first case, the instigator Watson, who had carried on his activities for quite a while was fined 10% of his match fees... and Gambhir was banned for a Test match (and I don't recall completely, but I think there was a 100% fine as well). Compare this with the second incident... the instigator Aamer was talked to by the match referee (not even an official reprimand) and Ponting was left out of the picture completely.

Here is the official release of what the match referee Chris Broad had to say on this incident: "Aamer is a young, exciting, talented player full of enthusiasm for this great sport and that is to be celebrated and nurtured. But there are a few things he still has to learn in relation to how to conduct himself on the field of play. I told him that when he takes a wicket, he should celebrate with his team-mates rather than getting himself into the personal space of the outgoing batsman. It's a spirit of cricket issue."

Why this stark contrast? And to top it all, it was the same Chris Broad who gave his judgement in both the cases. I am not against Gambhir's ban... he deserved it. It was Gambhir's second incident in a period of 12 months... so there was nothing wrong with that punishment.

But Shane Watson getting just a 10% fine? That's crap! He kept ranting on and on during the day in the direction of Gambhir. In the video, you will see the first verbal incident between the two occurred when India was 42-2... and the elbow incident occurred when India was 155-2. So Watson had a lot of time to get under the skin of Gambhir before finally seeing him retaliate.

And now, Aamer is spoken to and Ponting goes free? That's crappier! If the same level of leniency and / or strictness is to be maintained, then Aamer should have gotten a 10% fine (as per Watson's rubbish judgement) or maybe more considering that it was his second incident in a short period. And Ponting should have gotten atleast a 100% fine (I am not stating a 1 Test ban because this is his first incident of such nature in the last 12 months).

I know there will be a lot of varied opinions on this issue. But mine is pretty clear. This judgement throws up a big question - how can the same match referee give such contrasting judgements on two incidents of similar nature?

FINGERS CROSSED...

Mumbai Indians have won the toss in the first semi-final and elected to bat first. The moment match referee Javagal Srinath announced that Sachin had won the toss, I started muttering, "Bowl first, bowl first!" And then Sachin announced to the Navi Mumbai crowd, "We'd like to bat first!"

Though I want to see MI bat first, but I am scared of RCB's chasing record. The opening partnership of RCB has been imperious in run chases... and poor in target setting. But then this is the semi-final... the big stage! And two big men... Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble!

I am just keeping my fingers crossed... prayers ready... hopes raised... all for SRT! Anil Kumble, another great cricketer, deserves a title too! So he should lose the match, win the 3rd-place qualifier, and then go on to win the Champions League that will be played in South Africa. After all, his team is a mini - South Africa! He had his shot at the IPL trophy last year, missed it at the final hurdle... so now he should pass over the chance.

The stage is set... the teams ready... SRT is about to walk out... let the battle begin!

BURP! REACTIONS TO AFRIDI'S BITE

"Perhaps he didn't appreciate the lunch he was given in Australia." This is what Greame Smith had to say on Afridi's ball - biting act in Sunday's nail - biting finish at Perth.

Michael Jeh, a cricket writer based in Brisbane remarks, "Shahid Afridi’s actions today rank right up there with Dumb and Dumber."

Kamran Abbasi, arguably Pakistan's most reputed cricket writer hits the nail on the head. "We saw the daft side of Afridi, his ill-disguised bite of the cricket ball, a white and rather scruffy cherry. Pakistan were in with a shout, Afridi leading impressively, but he never looked the same after his appetite got the better of him and he was reprimanded by the umpires."

Pakistan's coach, Intikhab Alam, also seemed clueless. "It just happened, probably he was eating an apple you know."

Former Pakistan captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq, pondered, "What Afridi did was unacceptable and more worrying is the fact that he was captain when he tried to tamper with the ball. He didn't do any good service to Pakistan cricket with his actions. The match referee Ranjan Madugalle has been kind to Afridi, giving him just a two-match ban or else Afridi could have been in bigger trouble."

But what did Afridi himself have to say about his act? "I was just trying to smell it, how it is feeling." How do you smell with your teeth? I remember vaguely from my early school science lessons that tongue assists in smelling activities. Was that Afridi's intention?

A lot has been said and heard on this issue already. A lot more is still to come. Though Afridi has admitted that he is embarassed by the situation, I doubt this is the last bit of stupidity we will see from him on the cricket field. Burp!

BROAD'S STEP BETTER THAN AFRIDI'S BITE?

As expected, the blogosphere is buzzing with the "AFRIDI BITES BALL" controversy. I have read a lot of these blogs, and there is this one article that I found to be an interesting view. Here is the link: A Cricketing View: Ball-Tampering: Afridi v Broad.

This article talks about Stuart Broad's outrageously innocent (or innocently outrageous) remarks that he was just being too lazy in temperatures of 40 degrees centigrade. The English team's stand is compared to that of Afridi's. Afridi, atleast, admits that he made a mistake and is embarassed by it.

Lets rewind a bit. In the recent South Africa - England Test series in South Africa, Stuart Broad bowls a ball. The batsman defends it with a straight bat and the ball rolls towards the bowler. Broad, in his followthrough, steps on the ball in order to stop it from rolling any further. There are murmurs, which soon turn into whispers and then accusations, that this is the reason why the English pacers have been generating early reverse swing.

In both the cases (Broad and Afridi), I think that there will be a unanimous conclusion that the ball's condition was not affected to the extent that it will generate enormous amount of reverse swing. And in both the cases, the result of the match was not affected by the acts of the subjects.

However, if Afridi was handed a ban of 2 T20 Internationals and labelled as 'cheat', why not Stuart Broad? Is it because his father, Chris Broad, is a senior member of ICC's Elite Panel of Match Referees (as claimed by Sunil Gavaskar)? Is it just because he is English and Afridi is a Pakistani (as claimed by Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan)?

How many times have we seen varying standards in the way ICC metes out the punishments to offenders? How many times have we demanded that we want the system to be standardised? Yet, such issues keep on cropping up. No one is claiming that Afridi was right in chewing the cherry. But he was right in admitting his wrongdoings. This is where Stuart Broad erred.

I think ICC should revisit the Stuart Broad incident and announce a similar verdict to that of Afridi there. After all, stepping on the ball is a way of tampering with the ball (it has been attempted in the past by Hansie Cronje). I know that ICC, being ICC, is not going to do anything about the Broad incident. Yet, I think it is a duty of all the cricket bloggers to lodge our protests in our own silent ways.