CRICKET STUNG, ICC FEELS LITTLE PAIN
Clamour For More Stringent Sanctions Rises In Aftermath Of Cheatgate
K.ShriniwasRao@timesgroup.com 27.03.2018 TIMES OF INDIA
Mumbai: Apples and oranges is how the cricket world stands divided today, in the backdrop of the ball-tampering scandal that played out at the Newlands, Cape Town, on Saturday.
The International Cricket Council’s (ICC) shocking decision to allot Australia captain Steve Smith a one-match ban and dock 100% of his match fees has raised a clamour that refuses to die down despite the pandemonium Down Under that Smith could soon receive a much heavier punishment from his own board.
“Pathetic penalties for CHEATING,” tweeted former England captain Michael Vaughan, the ‘C’ word in capital and his call for a stronger reprimand has only been one among scores of similar such cries emanating from across the world.
Added to the act of tampering what has angered the cricket fraternity is the ICC’s inability to been seen as a body ready to take unprecedented steps in the need of the hour. The incident is being seen as a ‘cover-up’ and not a ‘crime’.
A captain conniving with a group of individuals in the team management, and in turn asking a young cricketer to rub sandpaper on the ball isn’t an act that needs to be punished through the ICC’s very questionable demerit points system. It’s an act of blatant cheating caught live on camera. “It’s worse than a young cricketer overstepping the crease to bowl no-balls and being caught live on camera. There’s no evidence any of his teammates having lured the cricketer into it. In this case, half the team was behind Bancroft,” says an ICC member board executive.
Aamir was banned for five years. It was a case of cheating the game. That’s what Australia did too. Yet, Smith has been handed a one-match ban.
“Amazed at the ICC response to the Aussie ball-tampering. Why did the ICC CEO have to raise the charge?,” says senior BCCI executive Ratnakar Shetty, who has been associated with the game’s administration for more than two decades. “The umpires are supposed to raise the charge and match referee takes action as per rules after enquiry. Can we have the match referee’s findings?” he tweeted.
And there lies a mystery ICC hasn’t answered yet. ICC’s statement – announcing Smith’s ban among other things – says: “Cameron Bancroft admitted he breached Article 2.2.9 of ICC Code of Conduct which relates to “changing the condition of the ball in breach of clause 41.3.” and accepted the sanction proposed by match referee Andy Pycroft”.
However, there is no mention whatsoever if Pycroft, or field umpires Nigel Llong and Richard Illingworth, found anything else wrong about the incident. “Smith’s admission of the act took place in the press conference after the day’s play. So, match officials couldn’t have known about it,” says an individual wellversed with ICC’s functioning. For long, the ICC has maintained that it is the match-officials in charge of the game. Then, is a media briefing not the match referee’s jurisdiction? “I’ll have to find out more about it,” says the individual.
Kagiso Rabada misses two matches for shoulder contact with a batsman in the heat of the moment while Shakib-al Hasan gets fined 25% of his match fee and a demerit point for calling his players out of the field in protest, and then is held responsible for smashing a glass door inside the dressing room. If that was already a debate all along, now a cricketer gets caught live on camera rubbing sandpaper on the ball and walks away with 75% of his match fee.
The question is, does the ICC have a specific system in place to counter breach of code and conduct? “Today I tamper with the ball and collect three demerit points. And two years later, the offences that have added up make for a one-match ban. Does it make sense? In football, if I wrongly tackle a player inside the box, I get sent out. In tennis, if I holler at the umpire, I get called. It’s simple. They’re not given points and judged in the next two years,” says an ex-cricketer.
There are questions and ICC seems to have made no attempt yet to give out answers.
DUO IN THE DOCK: The future of Steve Smith and David Warner hangs in balance
Clamour For More Stringent Sanctions Rises In Aftermath Of Cheatgate
K.ShriniwasRao@timesgroup.com 27.03.2018 TIMES OF INDIA
Mumbai: Apples and oranges is how the cricket world stands divided today, in the backdrop of the ball-tampering scandal that played out at the Newlands, Cape Town, on Saturday.
The International Cricket Council’s (ICC) shocking decision to allot Australia captain Steve Smith a one-match ban and dock 100% of his match fees has raised a clamour that refuses to die down despite the pandemonium Down Under that Smith could soon receive a much heavier punishment from his own board.
“Pathetic penalties for CHEATING,” tweeted former England captain Michael Vaughan, the ‘C’ word in capital and his call for a stronger reprimand has only been one among scores of similar such cries emanating from across the world.
Added to the act of tampering what has angered the cricket fraternity is the ICC’s inability to been seen as a body ready to take unprecedented steps in the need of the hour. The incident is being seen as a ‘cover-up’ and not a ‘crime’.
A captain conniving with a group of individuals in the team management, and in turn asking a young cricketer to rub sandpaper on the ball isn’t an act that needs to be punished through the ICC’s very questionable demerit points system. It’s an act of blatant cheating caught live on camera. “It’s worse than a young cricketer overstepping the crease to bowl no-balls and being caught live on camera. There’s no evidence any of his teammates having lured the cricketer into it. In this case, half the team was behind Bancroft,” says an ICC member board executive.
Aamir was banned for five years. It was a case of cheating the game. That’s what Australia did too. Yet, Smith has been handed a one-match ban.
“Amazed at the ICC response to the Aussie ball-tampering. Why did the ICC CEO have to raise the charge?,” says senior BCCI executive Ratnakar Shetty, who has been associated with the game’s administration for more than two decades. “The umpires are supposed to raise the charge and match referee takes action as per rules after enquiry. Can we have the match referee’s findings?” he tweeted.
And there lies a mystery ICC hasn’t answered yet. ICC’s statement – announcing Smith’s ban among other things – says: “Cameron Bancroft admitted he breached Article 2.2.9 of ICC Code of Conduct which relates to “changing the condition of the ball in breach of clause 41.3.” and accepted the sanction proposed by match referee Andy Pycroft”.
However, there is no mention whatsoever if Pycroft, or field umpires Nigel Llong and Richard Illingworth, found anything else wrong about the incident. “Smith’s admission of the act took place in the press conference after the day’s play. So, match officials couldn’t have known about it,” says an individual wellversed with ICC’s functioning. For long, the ICC has maintained that it is the match-officials in charge of the game. Then, is a media briefing not the match referee’s jurisdiction? “I’ll have to find out more about it,” says the individual.
Kagiso Rabada misses two matches for shoulder contact with a batsman in the heat of the moment while Shakib-al Hasan gets fined 25% of his match fee and a demerit point for calling his players out of the field in protest, and then is held responsible for smashing a glass door inside the dressing room. If that was already a debate all along, now a cricketer gets caught live on camera rubbing sandpaper on the ball and walks away with 75% of his match fee.
The question is, does the ICC have a specific system in place to counter breach of code and conduct? “Today I tamper with the ball and collect three demerit points. And two years later, the offences that have added up make for a one-match ban. Does it make sense? In football, if I wrongly tackle a player inside the box, I get sent out. In tennis, if I holler at the umpire, I get called. It’s simple. They’re not given points and judged in the next two years,” says an ex-cricketer.
There are questions and ICC seems to have made no attempt yet to give out answers.
DUO IN THE DOCK: The future of Steve Smith and David Warner hangs in balance
No comments:
Post a Comment