Sport Today

by **Guy Fawk** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 02:15:50

According to an ICC statement if Mike Denness is not officiating in
the Pretoria test then the match will not be an ICC test and the
statistics from that Test will not be included in official records.

Also, Sehwag's suspension will then not have been served and it will
have to be served for the first test against England.

This one is going to run and run it seems. :-( unless someone sees
sense. I think this is now going beyond the technicalities of who did
what to whom and when and why. Compromises need to be made.
Specifically, I would suggest :

Action against Tendulkar - dropped , even though he did break law 42 3
(ii) it didn't appear serious.
Action against Ganguly, dropped.
Action against Sehwag & others - moved to a suspended sentance. (The
umpires still need to be protected)

Thoughts on this?

I would suggest that the administrators are bringing the game into
disrepute far more than the players ever could.

Guy

by **Crickete** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 03:10:29

That compromise would have been acceptable to India but Taliban CC did not
see reason and decided to slap India/Dalmiya in the face instead.

by **Devadatta Mukutmo** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 03:47:58

Quote:

>According to an ICC statement if Mike Denness is not officiating in
>the Pretoria test then the match will not be an ICC test and the
>statistics from that Test will not be included in official records.

In which case Sehwag should play in the 3rd test.

by **V. Chandrasekha** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 04:24:13

<snip>

Quote:

> I would suggest that the administrators are bringing the game into
> disrepute far more than the players ever could.

Yep.

Shaker

by **Augustus Fink-Nott** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 04:54:49

Quote:

>This one is going to run and run it seems. :-( unless someone sees
>sense. I think this is now going beyond the technicalities of who did
>what to whom and when and why. Compromises need to be made.
>Specifically, I would suggest :

>Action against Tendulkar - dropped , even though he did break law 42 3
>(ii) it didn't appear serious.
>Action against Ganguly, dropped.
>Action against Sehwag & others - moved to a suspended sentance. (The
>umpires still need to be protected)

>Thoughts on this?

I disagree with the actions being dropped. The players were charged by
an ICC official who had the right to do so. Denness should be allowed
to be the referee in the third test. All the Indians are asking for is a
review of Denness's actions in T2 by a committee. I think that was the most
reasonable request made by the Indian board. The punishments should stand
for now. If after the review, a panel of referees agree that Denness had been
equal handed and fair, then so be it. If the panel disagrees that Denness
had been fair, only then should the players be exonerated. The ICC, by
rejecting the demand for a review, has pushed things to the limit where
visions of rebel matches aren't far.

- Gussie

by **Crickete** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 04:50:23

What is ICC? God?

--

by **Raj** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 04:54:22

If ICC listened to your advice, we wouldnt be in this mess in the first
place. They just dont want to compromise. Rules are not meant to be
permanent.

Quote:

> According to an ICC statement if Mike Denness is not officiating in
> the Pretoria test then the match will not be an ICC test and the
> statistics from that Test will not be included in official records.

> Also, Sehwag's suspension will then not have been served and it will
> have to be served for the first test against England.

> This one is going to run and run it seems. :-( unless someone sees
> sense. I think this is now going beyond the technicalities of who did
> what to whom and when and why. Compromises need to be made.
> Specifically, I would suggest :

> Action against Tendulkar - dropped , even though he did break law 42 3
> (ii) it didn't appear serious.
> Action against Ganguly, dropped.
> Action against Sehwag & others - moved to a suspended sentance. (The
> umpires still need to be protected)

> Thoughts on this?

> I would suggest that the administrators are bringing the game into
> disrepute far more than the players ever could.

> Guy

by **Ian Galbrai** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:04:13

:What is ICC? God?

Um in terms of cricket yes. If you think any sport doesn't need a fully
independent governing body then you're dreaming. It will drown in the
vested interests of the various countries.

--
Ian Galbraith

"Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment.
You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip
requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without
working at it." - The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

by **Crickete** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:10:05

ICC is not an independent body. It is headed by a bunch of fools who suffer
from delusions of colonial grandeur but they don't realise their power
derives and depends upon the trust of member countries.

by **Bob Dube** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:10:29

Quote:

>Action against Tendulkar - dropped , even though he did break law 42 3
>(ii) it didn't appear serious.

No. This must surely be the one incident that is absolutely cut and
dried. He broke the laws. The laws do not take into account what he
meant to do the ball, they say "you may not do this". He did it. He
got caught. He must be punished.

If Denness took no action in this case a precedent would be set and
bowlers would be digging their fingers into the seam with impunity.

Quote:

>Action against Ganguly, dropped.

Dropped or reduced IF there had been no prior complaint from the
umpires or the ref. We don't know if this was the case or not. The ICC
code of conduct does put the responsibility for the Indian team's
behaviour on Ganguly's shoulders.

Quote:

>Action against Sehwag & others - moved to a suspended sentance. (The
>umpires still need to be protected)

Sehwag got a touch of rough justice here. He is relatively
inexperienced in the ways of the couldron of Test cricket. But then...
surely the senior pros in the side or the management should have taken
him under their wing and given him some guidance. Even if it was along
the lines of "listen... you have to be careful what you say, you don't
know how many G&Ts the ref had at lunch time and perhaps last time he
was in India the kedgeree was not to his liking".

Quote:

>I would suggest that the administrators are bringing the game into
>disrepute far more than the players ever could.

I would suggest that everybody involved starts taking responsibility
for the things that they can do something about.

by **Bob Dube** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:11:03

Quote:

>In which case Sehwag should play in the 3rd test.

No. But he can play in the 5 day match between 11 of South Africa and
11 of India.

by **P.G. Felto** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:33:35

Quote:

> According to an ICC statement if Mike Denness is not officiating in
> the Pretoria test then the match will not be an ICC test and the
> statistics from that Test will not be included in official records.

> Also, Sehwag's suspension will then not have been served and it will
> have to be served for the first test against England.

> This one is going to run and run it seems. :-( unless someone sees
> sense. I think this is now going beyond the technicalities of who did
> what to whom and when and why. Compromises need to be made.
> Specifically, I would suggest :

> Action against Tendulkar - dropped , even though he did break law 42 3
> (ii) it didn't appear serious.
> Action against Ganguly, dropped.
> Action against Sehwag & others - moved to a suspended sentance. (The
> umpires still need to be protected)

> Thoughts on this?

This is your idea of a compromise? I can see no reason to clear SRT, he
did it!
The issue of the SA players abuse is bogus, if the Indian team were upset
about it
at the time they could have registered a complaint with the referee at
the time and
had it investigated. That they didn't indicates that they didn't feel
that strongly
about it and are just using it as post hoc cover for their own actions.
I don't see
how giving Sehwag a suspended sentence protects officials.

Phil.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> I would suggest that the administrators are bringing the game into
> disrepute far more than the players ever could.

> Guy

by **Bob Dube** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 18:20:06

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 02:33:35 -0500, "P.G. Felton"

Quote:

>The issue of the SA players abuse is bogus, if the Indian team were upset
>about it
>at the time they could have registered a complaint with the referee at
>the time and
>had it investigated. That they didn't indicates that they didn't feel
>that strongly
>about it and are just using it as post hoc cover for their own actions.

Phil, to be fair it is not the Indian players that are using that
tactic. It is the media and the supporters that are doing so.

by **R Saravana** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:17:04

Quote:

> >Action against Tendulkar - dropped , even though he did break law 42 3
> >(ii) it didn't appear serious.
> No. This must surely be the one incident that is absolutely cut and
> dried. He broke the laws. The laws do not take into account what he
> meant to do the ball, they say "you may not do this". He did it. He
> got caught. He must be punished.

> If Denness took no action in this case a precedent would be set and
> bowlers would be digging their fingers into the seam with impunity.

One day after tendulkar, kallis did the same thing.. yesterday McMillan has
done
more than that..(he has been reportedly picked up the seam.).. What
happened
to them.. NOTHING. isn't it setting a precedent? Be open to all the
incidents
happening around you..

Quote:

> >Action against Ganguly, dropped.
> Dropped or reduced IF there had been no prior complaint from the
> umpires or the ref. We don't know if this was the case or not. The ICC
> code of conduct does put the responsibility for the Indian team's
> behaviour on Ganguly's shoulders.

> >Action against Sehwag & others - moved to a suspended sentance. (The
> >umpires still need to be protected)
> Sehwag got a touch of rough justice here. He is relatively
> inexperienced in the ways of the couldron of Test cricket. But then...
> surely the senior pros in the side or the management should have taken
> him under their wing and given him some guidance. Even if it was along
> the lines of "listen... you have to be careful what you say, you don't
> know how many G&Ts the ref had at lunch time and perhaps last time he
> was in India the kedgeree was not to his liking".

> >I would suggest that the administrators are bringing the game into
> >disrepute far more than the players ever could.
> I would suggest that everybody involved starts taking responsibility
> for the things that they can do something about.

by **D. Smi** » Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:25:30

Quote:

> > According to an ICC statement if Mike Denness is not officiating in
> > the Pretoria test then the match will not be an ICC test and the
> > statistics from that Test will not be included in official records.

> > Also, Sehwag's suspension will then not have been served and it will
> > have to be served for the first test against England.

> > This one is going to run and run it seems. :-( unless someone sees
> > sense. I think this is now going beyond the technicalities of who did
> > what to whom and when and why. Compromises need to be made.
> > Specifically, I would suggest :

> > Action against Tendulkar - dropped , even though he did break law 42 3
> > (ii) it didn't appear serious.
> > Action against Ganguly, dropped.
> > Action against Sehwag & others - moved to a suspended sentance. (The
> > umpires still need to be protected)

> > Thoughts on this?

> This is your idea of a compromise? I can see no reason to clear SRT, he
> did it!

He did what. try not to hide behind words.

Quote:

> The issue of the SA players abuse is bogus,

How the hell do you know, smart alec. Just because Mike Denness is a
cheat and he is English - ok he is Scot - you are crying.

if the Indian team were upset

Quote:

> about it
> at the time they could have registered a complaint with the referee at
> the time and
> had it investigated.

Did the South African team protest? You really are stupid.

That they didn't indicates that they didn't feel

Quote:

> that strongly
> about it and are just using it as post hoc cover for their own actions.

Proves your stupidity.

Quote:

> I don't see
> how giving Sehwag a suspended sentence protects officials.

Does everything have to be explained to you? Is your IQ really that
low?

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Phil.

> > I would suggest that the administrators are bringing the game into
> > disrepute far more than the players ever could.

> > Guy

Sport Today

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand

Sehwag ban to stand