Why not Stewart... why not Mahanama?

Why not Stewart... why not Mahanama?

Post by <vig.. » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00


It seems that English team has already released a press
release to say that ICC has cleared all English players.
None of them is required to face the disciplinary
committee.

Mahanama shouldered as he went for a quick run.  Umpires
were certain that it was Mahanama's track and tehre was
no reason to give Mahanama out.  I saw the match and Mahanama
took an extra effort to shoulder Gough.  Mahanama should
be warned - although this was an effort to save wicket and
not to do anything more.

But, Stewart intentionally walked along the pitch (the keeper
is not supposed to) and shouldered Mahanama during an over
break.  This was 'appaling for a captain of a country'.

It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to physically come to contact with an
opposition player in the cricket field.  

How did ICC decide not to bring Mahanama and Stewart to the
hearing?  After all, the hearing committee is supposed to
make that decision.

 
 
 

Why not Stewart... why not Mahanama?

Post by Ashe » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>It seems that English team has already released a press
>release to say that ICC has cleared all English players.
>None of them is required to face the disciplinary
>committee.

>Mahanama shouldered as he went for a quick run.  Umpires
>were certain that it was Mahanama's track and tehre was
>no reason to give Mahanama out.

I saw this as well. When it happened I thought nothing of it
and was wondering what Gough was jumping up and down about.
The commentators thought this as well until the slow-mo replay
which clearly showed him shoulder into Gough.

Pity this can't go to the third umpire to see what happened.
Most of the poms feilding then looked at the replay on the
screen and then got a little annoyed. The umpires also saw
the replay and then walked over to Mahanama and said whatever.

Quote:
> I saw the match and Mahanama
>took an extra effort to shoulder Gough.  Mahanama should
>be warned - although this was an effort to save wicket and
>not to do anything more.

The umpires were proberly looking towards the stumps area for possible
run out decisions. They then watched the replay and said something to
Mahanama.

If the umpires saw it as it happened I think they would have given the
batsman out, but then again why risk another walk out by Sri Lanka
over a umpires decision.

Quote:
>But, Stewart intentionally walked along the pitch (the keeper
>is not supposed to) and shouldered Mahanama during an over
>break.  This was 'appaling for a captain of a country'.

Mahanama got off lightly I thought.

I have a new respect for the captain of England today.
When Ranatunga was batting he kept on arguing with
Stewart. Then Stewart said something like -
your behaviour today has been appauling
from a visiting captain and told him to settle down.

 
 
 

Why not Stewart... why not Mahanama?

Post by Gary Jerra » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Mahanama shouldered as he went for a quick run.  Umpires
>>were certain that it was Mahanama's track and tehre was
>>no reason to give Mahanama out.

>I saw this as well. When it happened I thought nothing of it
>and was wondering what Gough was jumping up and down about.
>The commentators thought this as well until the slow-mo replay
>which clearly showed him shoulder into Gough.

>Pity this can't go to the third umpire to see what happened.
>Most of the poms feilding then looked at the replay on the
>screen and then got a little annoyed. The umpires also saw
>the replay and then walked over to Mahanama and said whatever.

>> I saw the match and Mahanama
>>took an extra effort to shoulder Gough.  Mahanama should
>>be warned - although this was an effort to save wicket and
>>not to do anything more.

>The umpires were proberly looking towards the stumps area for possible
>run out decisions. They then watched the replay and said something to
>Mahanama.

I must have missed that, I was wondering why the umpire had a word with
Gough when he went past but ignored Mahanama.

Quote:
>If the umpires saw it as it happened I think they would have given the
>batsman out, but then again why risk another walk out by Sri Lanka
>over a umpires decision.

>>But, Stewart intentionally walked along the pitch (the keeper
>>is not supposed to) and shouldered Mahanama during an over
>>break.  This was 'appaling for a captain of a country'.

This was a result of a later incident. Stewart was over the side of the
stumps waiting for a return and the batsman ran into in. Accidentally or
not, Stewart took it as deliberate after the Gough incident.

 
 
 

Why not Stewart... why not Mahanama?

Post by Mic Cull » Wed, 27 Jan 1999 04:00:00


written:

[snips]

Quote:
> Mahanama should
>be warned - although this was an effort to save wicket and
>not to do anything more.

"All he did was obstruct the field". Top defence, I wish I'd thought of
that...

Have a good one,

Mic. (Return address will work as is...)

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.

 
 
 

Why not Stewart... why not Mahanama?

Post by Qarno » Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> "All he did was obstruct the field". Top defence, I wish I'd thought of
> that...

"All I did was shoot him in the head, Mr. Judge. Honest!"

--
-=> QarnoS <=-

"Things like computers that can fit into a single room..."
 -- Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Apollo 13