Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by Sarkhail Haya » Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Simpson defended the present system, praising the illegal action committee
as an excellent body, and saying there should be no problems provided
procedure was followed.
"It has worked in the past without trouble. The members are working
very well together, most diligently and professionally, and I think it is
necessary in the interests of the game," he said.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding. Though its easy to come up with headlines like these from
peoples's comments, isn't it? Thats what the tabloids do.

Sarkhail

 
 
 

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by Irfa » Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> The ICC Panel is absolutely essential. No question whatsoever about it.
> However, I feel after any adverse decision, there should be a means by which
> the accused Bowler together with his coach and captain can put forward their
> side of an appeal face to face with say a sub-ICC panel of three.
> We are talking about the career and livelihood of a cricketer, which ever
> country he may come from.

Agree on all counts.
Quote:

> Regards.
> Phil.


 
 
 

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by Razi Chaudhr » Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Absolutely correct!.

Player must be allowed to defend his case. And he should be allowed defend
his case with different committee. Not the same people.

And I must add, that the "chucking committe" must compromise of all time
great bowlers. Not avg. bowlers and neither any batsman.

Regards
Razi Chaudhry


Quote:
> > .
> The ICC Panel is absolutely essential. No question whatsoever about it.
> However, I feel after any adverse decision, there should be a means by
which
> the accused Bowler together with his coach and captain can put forward
their
> side of an appeal face to face with say a sub-ICC panel of three.
> We are talking about the career and livelihood of a cricketer, which ever
> country he may come from.

> Regards.
> Phil.


 
 
 

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by Steve Loffle » Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

> And I must add, that the "chucking committe" must compromise of
> all time
> great bowlers. Not avg. bowlers and neither any batsman.

So you'd be happy if Courtney Walsh was to chair such a committee?  You
wanted his action scrutinised yesterday, but today he's fit to sit in
judgement on the bowling actions of others?

Steve

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by Philip Stephe » Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> Simpson defended the present system, praising the illegal action committee
> as an excellent body, and saying there should be no problems provided
> procedure was followed.
> "It has worked in the past without trouble. The members are working
> very well together, most diligently and professionally, and I think it is
> necessary in the interests of the game," he said.
> .

The ICC Panel is absolutely essential. No question whatsoever about it.
However, I feel after any adverse decision, there should be a means by which
the accused Bowler together with his coach and captain can put forward their
side of an appeal face to face with say a sub-ICC panel of three.
We are talking about the career and livelihood of a cricketer, which ever
country he may come from.

Regards.
Phil.

 
 
 

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by Ian Galbrai » Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:00:00


:> Simpson defended the present system, praising the illegal action committee
:> as an excellent body, and saying there should be no problems provided
:> procedure was followed.
:> "It has worked in the past without trouble. The members are working
:> very well together, most diligently and professionally, and I think it is
:> necessary in the interests of the game," he said.

:The ICC Panel is absolutely essential. No question whatsoever about it.
:However, I feel after any adverse decision, there should be a means by which
:the accused Bowler together with his coach and captain can put forward their
:side of an appeal face to face with say a sub-ICC panel of three.
:We are talking about the career and livelihood of a cricketer, which ever
:country he may come from.

Did you miss the reports that Michael Holding, a member of the committee,
was going to fly to Pakistan to help him with his action, or that once it
was decided that he would stay in Australia that he would do some work with
Lillee, which he subsequently blew off.

--
Ian Galbraith

"To say that these men paid their shillings to watch twenty-two hirelings
kick a ball is merely to say that a violin is wood and catgut, that
Hamlet is so much paper and ink. For a shilling the Bruddersford United
AFC offered you conflict and art." - J.B. Priestley

 
 
 

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by Pete » Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> And I must add, that the "chucking committe" must compromise of all time
> great bowlers. Not avg. bowlers and neither any batsman.

Why?
 
 
 

Banning Akhter '"in the interests of the game" says Simpson

Post by David Blak » Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:00:00

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:42:05 +1000, in article

did scribe:

Quote:

>> And I must add, that the "chucking committe" must compromise of all time
>> great bowlers. Not avg. bowlers and neither any batsman.

>Why?

Because then he can claim that the decision made by the current
committee are invalid......

--
cheers,

Dave

remove .au to reply