Denness clarifies original ruling on Tendulkar incident

So what do the idiots and morons in r.s.c. who said that Sachin was a ball
tamperor say now?
Does ICC and Denness now owe BCCI and Tendulkar an apology for the original
ICC statement?
Will you guys now apologise on r.s.c. or find some other excuses?

Read the 2000 rules on what is allowed to be done to the ball.
--
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com

The ones who said he was ball-tampering may be eating crow. Those of
us who maintained all along that the offence was that he hadn't been
doing it under the umpire's supervision got just as much abuse from
the more hysterical Indian supporters.

Cheers,

Mike

Very few of them did, and the impression that I got for the ones that
were is they were successfully trolling.

Most have maintained that SRT at the very least was cleaning the seam
without supervision, but very few Indian posters accepted this even
though it's *clearly* prohibited in Law 42. This wasn't accepted by
many Indian posters who maintained that it was just a way to smear mud
on Sachin.

What he did was against the rules of fair play. The extent of the
breach of the rules of fair play in my opinion were exceptionally
minor, as I believe was the penalty that was handed out. A one
match suspended sentence and a loss of match pay to a player such as
Sachin who you would be hard pressed to find another reason to penalise
him the rest of his career is no more than a slap on the wrist.

I suspect you'll hear silence from them too.

Cheers,
Rod.

So you still maintain that he's a ball tamperor?
You are really a big idiot.

- Sougata

Really? Didn't you read the posts from Mad Hamish and Will Sutton?

So hasn't anyone else cleaned the ball?

I'm sure they have and done so under the limitations of the law.

Now I'm going to copy something into this message that hopefully make
things clearer for you and then I'll pose 2 questions.

***************
3. The match ball – changing its condition

(a) Any fielder may

(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and
that such polishing wastes no time.

(ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire.

(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.

(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason,
interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any
implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to
alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in (a) above.
****************

Now, the above is a direct copy of 'The Laws of Cricket, 2000 Code - Law
42, Fair and unfair play', not altered in any way.

1) Was Sachin guilty of 3(a)(ii)?

2) Was Sachin guilty of 3(b)?

My answer to question 1 is clearly yes.

My answer to question 2 is not enough evidence to commit. However, the
second version of video footage I saw was damning but I'm willing to
give Sachin the benefit of the doubt. He may well have just been
vigorously cleaning gunk from the stitches of the ball and not attempting
to alter the condition of the ball.

Cheers,
Rod.

Read the rules.

People like Wee Willy boy, Alvey & co wouldn't apologise for driving the
wrong way on a one way street, instead arguing that they were still,
technically, going only one way!!

Larrikin

The silence, while they are all eating crow, is deafening!!

Larrikin

news:3c05a640...@news.bigpond.com...

My answer to question (1) is yes. However, many others have also done it.
So why were they also not penalised?

My answer to question (2) is definitely not.

3 (a) says what a player can do. It does not say that anything other than
that is illegal. Therefore, using 3(a) you cannot prove any violation.
You need to use 3(b).

Yes. "take any action to alter the condition of the ball, except as

The rule is ludicrous. By the simple act of bowling, one "takes an action
to alter the condition of the ball" that is not laid out in 3 (a). These
badly worded rules and codes of conduct need serious repair to more
explicit ones.

-PM

Yes, please explain how what Sachin did is not barred under the rules.

Shreesh

This includes most of the Aussies because Alvey Sidecast proved to me
yesterday that most of the Aussies believe that there is conclusive
evidence of ball-tampering. Will Sutton, of course, believes that anyone
who thinks ball-tampering is not conclusively evident is plain dishonest.
I guess you are dishonest, then, as is Mike Denness.

You're still not off the hook because you've still gotta explain why
others who did similar things (such as CD McMillan, for instance) got away
with it.

-Samarth.

Was proven to me by Alvey yesterday that most of the Aussies felt there
was conclusive evidence ball-tampering occured.

-Samarth.

Mike Denness disagrees with you. Guess he hasn't read the rules, then.

<space here for you to say, "bah">

-Samarth.

[snip]

:You're still not off the hook because you've still gotta explain why

Again, the McMillan incident has not been mentioned in Aust., I haven't
heard about it outside this newsgroup. So its currently impossible to
assess. Got any other names?

--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631

"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

> 3. The match ball - changing its condition

You are being silly. Try making that one fly in a court of law: the judge
would rule that since bowling is permitted under many other rules, then it
doesn't need to be excepted from 3b.

What I don't get is that why you want to stuff up the conclusion that
everyone's coming to, which is that SRT was guilty of nothing more than a
technical violation of the rules, that he is not a cheat, that his
reputation is still as high as it ever was, and that he is free to play the
next match anyway. The consensus is coming over to you on this issue. I
think you should concentrate on exposing just how appalling the
administrators have been over all of this. That's the level at which some
real change might come.

phil

I think you need to make a distinction here between "most of the Aussies"
and "most posts in rsc from Aussies". Hamish, Will and Kynoch make up more
than half the Aussie posting among them. Among the individual posters,
however, may lurk a different story...

phil

What makes you think that it is my responsibility to explain an
incident which I didn't see and has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether or not Tendulkar was guilty as charged? Especially as it seems
to be a fantasy dreamed up by Indian supporters.

I don't have to explain anything to you. Not that it's usually
possible, given your long track record of wilful misunderstanding.

Cheers,

Mike

Who are these others you speak of?

Had they been caught I would suggest they would have been penalised.

Cheers,
Rod.

Its ok to put down posters you disagree with in your inimitable style Mike
but he raises a very good point regarding the inconsistencies of different
match referees. Like it or not, this IS a very major issue in this whole
silly mess. Ignore it at the game's peril.

Larrikin

>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Sanath Jayasuriya has been photographed stealing candy from babies. I
demand that you address this proven disgusting behaviour.

Moby.

Now you REALLY have gone round the bend Moby!! I'm talking to a retard from
Queenland.

Larrikin

>
> Moby.
>

And since he hasn't, Hamish therefore will now ask for Denness to be
barred for incompetence and ignorance of the Code of Conduct; and
so clearly, his rulings are null and void.

Right Hamish? How else do we resolve this huge conflicts -- you *KNOW*
it is tampering; the MR says it isn't. He must be wrong since as you say it
is clear under the rules. Thus he is incompetent.

It logically follows that all his rulings are now questionable, and need to
be set aside, or held in suspension at least, so that they can be reviewed
by those more competent and knowledgable about the Code..

Bharat [assuming Hamish's vigorous assent]

--
R. Bharat Rao rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com
"It is true that one may become rich through practicing evil,
but the power of Truth and Justice is that they endure ...
and that a man can say of them, "They are a heritage from
my father." ___The Instruction of Ptahhotep,

It's worth pointing out that "ball tampering" is not defined in the Laws (or
the Rules of Conduct). I'm not even sure that the phrase is used in those.
Hence, we can all interpret "ball tampering" to mean anything we want.

What Law 42.3 clearly says is that it is "unfair" to take any action which
is "likely to alter the condition of the ball", except (i) polish it (that
too, with no artificial substance, and without wasting time) (ii) remove
mud, under the supervision of an umpire, and (iii) dry a wet ball on a
towel.

It's not unreasonable to infer that the Laws imply that all such "unfair"
actions constitute ball tampering. This would include, but is not limited
to, drying a dry ball on a towel (so perhaps bowlers should prove to the
umpire that the ball is wet before they dry it), removing dirt that is not
mud (e.g., if a chewing gum wrapper got stuck to the ball, it is unfair for
the bowler to remove it), and any number of other actions we can think of
that do not constitute "ball tampering" in the manner most people might
think of it.

Someone pointed out that, under this definition, it may be unfair for the
bowler to bowl a ball, since that is likely to alter it's condition. Is it
unfair to bowl a slow knee-high full toss that the batsman whacks for four?
That certainly alters the condition of the ball, in a manner unapproved by
Law 42.3(a).

It's also interesting that Law 42.3(c) says that if anyone has changed the
condition of the ball unfairly, the umpires will promptly (i) change the
ball, and (iii) award five penalty runs to the batting side (along with
other details about informing captains, etc).

I don't see how it matters *when* the umpires are aware that someone has
unfairly changed the condition of the ball. According to the press reports,
this should have occurred no later than close of play on day 3 of the match,
at the 71 over point.

Did the umpires change the ball on day 4?

Did they award five penalty runs to RSA? The scorecard certainly doesn't
mention it.

Or did they decide that the fact that the match referee had observed this
unfair alteration, but not them, render the actions specified in Law 42.3(c)
irrelevant?

Needless to say, the Laws don't consider the case of anyone other than the
umpires noticing this unfair alteration. However, it seems that the failure
to award RSA five penalty runs is clearly unfair. Suppose, e.g., the umpires
were only aware of what happened at the end of day 4 of this match. It was
obviously too late to change the ball, but (IMO, anyway: I'm not a qualified
umpire, but I do think this should have been done) they should have awarded
RSA five penalty runs if Tendulkar broke this Law. And if he didn't, he
shouldn't have been penalized by the match referee.

It's too late to correct this error: the Laws also specify that penalty runs
cannot be awarded once the match is over.

BTW, CricInfo has a weird line on this card:
"Series: South Africa wins the 2-Test series 2-0".

I completely fail to see how RSA could have won a 2-Test series 2-0, with
the 2nd Test being drawn. They could have won a 3-Test series 2-0, or a
2-Test series 1-0, but couldn't have won a 2-Test series 2-0.

I was being facetious Uday... It was sarcasm; sorry if it didn't come
through.

Bharat

Oh, my comment wasn't directed specifically at you, but it seemed as good a
place to thread my comments as any. We are all talking about "ball
tampering", and that is very much like "excessive appealing"; it's not
mentioned specifically, so can be interpreted in any which way.

In any case, I am now very curious about why RSA were not awarded 5 penalty
runs for an offence which earned a penalty for a violation of Law 42.3(b).
Too bad umpires rarely comment on such events.

This seems like a straightforward case. Either (i) Law 42.3 (b) *was*
contravened, in which case five penalty runs should have been awarded to
RSA, or (ii) Law 42.3 (b) *was not* contravened, in which case no penalty
should have been imposed on Tendulkar.

I suppose the likely explanation is that, in the ensuing fracas, the umpires
forgot about the penalty. But if there is a valid legal reason for not
awarding those runs, it would be good to know. Any of our resident umpires
still reading this thread?

So you didn't see it but you think the ones who did, in fact, really
didn't.

Personal attacks only put you in the same category in terms of
intelligence as Will Sutton, the guy who thinks you're dishonest.

-Samarth.

It's obvious that Denness means that he didn't convict Tendulkar for
applying a bottle-top, lifting the seam etc. He found Tendulkar guilty
of illegal cleaning of the ball.

It is barred under the rules but it is not tampering.
Also lots of other people do it becuase it is a trivial issue.

- Sougata

Yep, clearly attacking the poster rather than the points he made.

Moby.
And while we're on the subject, weren't you one of the ones who got right
up Hewitt for his use of the word "retard" (I know I was)

Or is it just different if you do it?

No it wasn't, the word 'tamper' was not used in Denness's release, go on the
ICC
site and check it out

Likewise there were no suspensions for 'excessive appealing' they were for
dissent
and attempting to intimidate the umpire!

So what you're saying is that if the Indian media hadn't inaccurately
reported the facts
then it wouldn't have been such a big deal, in which case I would suggest
that the remedy
lies other than with the ICC!

Phil.

Well, Phil, he did add the "bringing disrepute to the game" bit. Now,
since when did an oversight of the laws become equivalent to willful
acts which bring disrepute to the game? Bringing disrepute clearly
has implications of willful dishonest and/or crude behaviour. The match
referee's press release should have had different wording if the charge
was simply that of a transgression of the literal law. If you look at past
referee decisions on the ICC website, you'll find that "bringing disrepute"
is not an automatic consequence of breaking the laws of cricket. Denness
wrote that in specifically in Tendulkar's case to indicate what he had
done was not a simple transgression but an act of dishonesty which
brought disrepute to the game. Of course, now Denness has gone back
on his own words and said it was only a technical violation - in which
case he is going to have a hard time justifying the penalty imposed and
the wording of his decision - and possibly setting an impossible precedent
for acceptable behaviour and appropriate penalties!

- Gussie

Well, Mcmillan for one was recently seen *cleaning* the ball during the 2nd
test.

By you?

The only people I've seen claiming the McMillan incident have
been Indians. I've watched as much as I can so far of the
current test series and I haven't even heard mention of it,
let alone seen the incident.

Cheers,
Rod.

Yes of course. All Indians are liears and cheats.
> Cheers,
> Rod.

> > By you?

Have you seen the incident. Yes/No?

Cheers,
Rod.

- Sougata

news:MPG.1671bf67e...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

But you used it as evidence to support your claim. If you were
doing that, I would have expected that you had viewed the
evidence.

Just like Indians believe that the Aussie media is exceptionally
biased, I also believe the Indian media to be the same. Some of
the articles I have read that have been posted from Indian media
has occassionally made me wonder if we've watched the same incident.

There has been alot of speculation with regards to the SRT incident
and if McMillans actions had been similar in any way, the Aussie
media would have no problems whatsoever running with it.. in fact
they would be reveling in it.

Cheers,
Rod.

Where did I use it as evidence? Can you point out the article?

So why would the Indian journalists nail McMillan?
Wouldn't it be more sensational if they pointed out a Australian?
There must have been something.

Btw, I respect many of the Australian journalists. I am not as prejudiced as
you to think all the Australians are liars/ prejudiced, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Rod.

I asked you a case where picking at the ball went unpunished
and you stated McMillan. Isn't that evidence that a player
did the same as SRT and went unpunished?

I have no idea. I'm not an Indian journalist.

Cheers,
Rod.

No I didn't. Can u point the article?

Still u think they are all liars - invent stories out of nowhere.

>
> Cheers,
> Rod.

Case of mistaken identity. Sorry, was following the replys
and not the originator.

Some of the articles I have read does not constitute they
are all liars. I suggested bias which doesn't neccessarily
suggest lying. One of the articles I read had a link to a
pic of an English county game (?) where a bowler had a finger
on the seam, claiming that he was doing exactly the same
as SRT but not punished.

Cheers,
Rod.

Because he made this up. You can attack me to if I falsely alleged that you
were a paedophile, bank robber, an animal abuser & a fraud. If the post was
factual, that would be different.

No, not me.

If someone falsely accuses me of something, I surely will get right up em.
Bloody oath I will.

Larrikin

>
>
>

Well sometimes the 'icons' of the game are held to a higher standard, like for
example an England captain. So far I haven't seen a single poster complain
about SRT "bringing disrepute to the game" they've mainly complained about
the imaginary charge of 'ball tampering'.

But your bait and switch tactics are getting rather old, what I was addressing
was the latest in a long line of assholes misrepresenting the charges which were

made and when the charges are clarified saying 'look he's changed the charge
from ball tampering if he hadn't said that in the first place we wouldn't have
made
a fuss'. Bhopali doesn't have a single fact correct and yet all he had to do
was read
the official document which has been available for a week, why is that? Face up
to
it your press has misrepresented the facts from the first leak they made, aided
and
abetted by the Indian team management. Even now we still have posters such as
Bhopali talking about 'excessive appealing' the invention of the Indian press on
D-day -1.

I would say that the Atherton case in '94 set the precedent! Iconhood brings
with it responsibilities as well as privileges. Perhaps the BCCI should have
done what ECB did to Atherton, fined SRT for his actions in addition to the
ICC fine!

Phil.

Bad form and all that, but I did find my answer: the
Test match Rules, which contain several modifications
of the Laws, state very clearly that the five penalty
runs will not be awarded.

Well, there was a nice collection of clippings shown by one of the sports
channel (ESPN/Star??) in India depicting on-field behaviour/over appealing/
seam cleaning that most of the current teams engage in, which contained the
McMillan incident also. My guess would be that they were particularly in
lookout for players involved in seam cleaning, after the Tendulkar incident.
I cannot help it if that was not shown in any other country. So you'll only
find Indians claiming to have seen the McMillan incident.
As an aside, I've seen only Austrailians claiming that there is a 2nd footage
that clearly shows Tendulkar tampering with the ball. I've watched as much
as I can of the IndvRSA series (yes, I was watching when the seam cleaning
thing was shown) and I didn't find any clipping showing SRT picking on the seam.

>
> Cheers,
> Rod.

No, that's not the explanation; see
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2001/AUG/477195_ICC_31AUG2001.html

I gave what I think to be the explanation in another posting to this
thread? Is anybody seeing my posts? Nobody has responded to one of
them in the last week, and I thought some of them were controversial.

Take it easy,
Ron Knight

I've been along these lines myself, but haven't bothered to send in my
post to disappear in the swamp. But since you brought it up: The
word "tampering" is used exactly once in the Laws, in the Preamble,
and that instance is the only form of the word "tamper" to appear in
the Laws. I haven't done a search of the ICC regulations. This usage
in the Preamble is an undefined usage that is clearly a general term,
rather than a specific one, and no actual definition of "tampering
with the ball" is given in the Laws, unless you want to understand
that Law 42.3 provides this definition without explicitly saying so.
It's just quibbling over words, but I think it is reasonable to refer
to Law 42.3 as the "Law against tampering with the ball", and,
although I don't go that far myself, I think your suggestion is
reasonable that *some* people might use the phrase "tampering with the
ball" to cover any violation of Law 42.3.

However, if they do so, then they must recognize that they are using
the phrase in a way that some other people do not. But it is not an
unreasonable way to use the phrase. Similarly we refer to "disallowed
leg-byes" and everybody with some acquaintance with the Laws
understands what we are talking about, even though, technically,
sometimes the disallowed runs might be no-balls or even runs off the
bat rather than leg-byes. Similarly we refer to a batsman being out
"leg before wicket" even though the ball might have hit him on the
shoulder. There is no requirement that the cricketing term for a
thing correspond to what the ignorant person on the street thinks that
term means. I do think that some of the argument about whether
Tendulkar was tampering with the ball or not is really just a tempest
in a teapot between people who are using the term to mean two
different things. He was in violation of Law 42.3; if you call that
tampering with the ball it was tampering with the ball; if you require
that the ball be actually tampered with then he was not tampering the
ball. Perhaps the Lawgivers didn't use the word "tampering" in the
body of the Laws with good reason, just as the ICC Codewriters removed
the word "sledging" with good reason.

Instead what the Laws give us is quite clear. It is a violation of
Law 42.3 to take any action whatsoever, other than three clearly
specified ones, that is likely to alter the condition of the ball.
Whether it in fact alters the condition of the ball is irrelevant.
But it remains that one may violate 42.3 and alter the condition of
the ball or violate 42.3 and not alter the condition of the ball. It
seems that everyone of reason is now agreed that, at least
technically, Tendulkar violated 42.3, and most agree that he did not
alter the condition of the ball unfairly. The description I would
naturally use is "violated the Law against tampering with the ball",
which to me is not exactly the same thing as "tampered with the ball",
and that is my slight difference with your hypothesis above. Thus it
seems to me to be natural, although not right, for the match referee
or the ICC or someone else to use the shorthand phrase "tampered with
the ball" or "interfered with the condition of the ball". It's not
right because it's bad communication that will raise an incorrect
picture in many people's heads, but neither do I think that it is as
malevolent or culpable as people have been trying to make it out to
be.

We are having a bit of a tussle right now on r.s.c. with whether we
should interpret Laws and rules literally or attempt to divine their
intent and follow their spirit. Any official in any sport will tell
you that understanding the intent and spirit of a rule is essential to
being a good official, rather than applying the letter of the Law.
However, I think that cricket tries harder than most sports, to the
extent of bewildering complexity in the latest Code of Laws, to define
things objectively and remove the umpire's wiggle room as much as
possible. The Laws should be followed. However, there were times in
my early career as an umpire when I was urged not to "read too much"
into a Law or rule, and although it's not always easy to draw the
line, I think it is easy to do so in this case. We know that the
natural deterioration of the ball through being bowled, struck, and
fielded is one of the gloriously interesting parts of the game of
cricket, and to imagine that any Law, whatever its wording, seeks to
prohibit this is, simply put, to read too much into the Law. The
basic principle is that players are allowed to retard that natural
deterioration by polishing and cleaning under certain circumstances,
but under no circumstances are they allowed to hasten the natural
deterioration of the ball. This is not really a matter of debate;
99.78% of people who know anything about cricket understand that this
is so, and so there is no point in debating whether the literal
wording of the Law says anything else. When a new Law or rule is
written in such a way that genuine cricketers are unsure of its
meaning, that is another matter, but that does not apply in the
present case.

As we have agreed, and I sneaked it in above and I'll bet you agreed
as you read it, Tendulkar did not change the condition of the ball
unfairly (and even those who think he did have to agree that in the
end that was not what he was charged with). Therefore the parts of
Law 42.3 about warnings and changing the ball and awarding 5-run
penalties do not apply. Tendulkar was in violation of Law 42.3, but
he did not change the condition of the ball unfairly. I'll leave the
rest of your post below for those who haven't seen it, but it is
really irrelevant; there was no unfair alteration of the condition of
the ball, and so there was no need for these actions by the umpires.

>

No, this is the first post of yours we are seeing. Did you even post any
last week? In the midst of all the noise it is quite possible for many to
miss your responses, unless it is a separate thread of its own.

And thanks for the link. I think I have to look at this more closely.
I will get back with a response.

Cheers
B.

Ron Knight wrote:

Right. Thanks for putting it across so well. Clearly, SRT was guilty
of "violated the Law against tampering with the ball." To go from that
transgression to "tampered with the ball" or "interfered with the condition
of the ball" requires more than video evidence, viz, the actual state of the
match ball impounded at that point or soon after as evidence. Which is
why the match referee's handout "clarifying" SRT's sentence is even
more misleading.

Thanks for this clarification. This was a nagging question to some of us
here who were debating this. As usual, you have taken the time to
reflect about it and write a clear explanation.

Cheers
B.

A whole bunch of your posts just arrived tonight on my server, I think you've been in cyber limbo?
Welcome back.

Phil.

Yes, thanks for the clarifications, I did see your
earlier post just a few minutes ago. I think there may
be some issues with your server, about 20 of your posts
showed up on my server sometime in the last two hours
or so. But it was worth the wait :-).

Wog

The ICC playing conditions say that it's not necessary for the umpires to
initiate action under 42.3(b) for the MR to become involved. Presumably
because of the possibility of the TV, rather than the umpires, discovering
the infringement.
>
> I suppose the likely explanation is that, in the ensuing fracas, the
umpires
> forgot about the penalty. But if there is a valid legal reason for not
> awarding those runs,

Law 42.17 says penalties are awarded when THE ball BECOMES dead. The
implication being "at the time." Penalties are no more awarded 55 overs
later than are no-balls.

Wog

I've never thought the ICC were competant, why should I start now?

Moby.

First a little bit of self-defence. I don't have access to ICC site,
so am bound to believe in what press says and what other people say
including those in RSC. And when it comes to press, I am not following
Indian press as much as the Australian press. So 'my press' is the
Australian press and not the Indian press. And for confirmation today
I checked the daily telegraph(UK) for their report of the day the
sentences were announced. While it does not talk of 'excessive
appealing', it does clearly say 'ball tampering' while mentioning
SRT's sentence. What else do you think a common sports follower needs
to do to be in touch with the happenings? And both the press(not just
Indian) and the posters(not just Indian again) have repeatedly used
ball-tampering as well as excessive appealing. Agreed however that
BCCI should react to official statements unlike me.

I have maintained that the entire furore was because of over-action on
the part of Match Referee in just one game. Atherton's case was just
the case of one player being fined. And this one is fining 6 out of 11
of one side in one game. To me Indian officials supporting the cause
of Indian players came as a big surprise. That is not what usually
happens. The same is true of Indian fans and media. Ganguly is called
arrogant by Indian media and Indian fans alike for his aggressiveness.
There are 'rough' fans for every sport in every part of the world.
They will blindly support their icons and countries. Surprising though
that this list of blind followers included Steve Waugh, John Howard,
Robert Craddock, etc. And that there are blind followers of ICC too.

You however implied that the charge had been 'tampering' and inferred that this
charge had
changed which it had not, unfortunately you were misled by inaccurate reporting which
is a
salutary lesson. :-) Regarding 'tampering' this is mentioned in the preamble on
the 'spirit of
the game' and the only law which could cover 'ball tampering' is law 42 so short hand
to describe
the offence could be 'ball tampering'. However, there are various degrees of offense
described in
this law and SRT was charged with the lesser of these (vide Denness's clarification),
had he been
found guilty (beyond reasonable doubt?) he would probably have picked up an actual
ban not a
suspended one. 'Excessive appealing' was leaked by the Indian press before Denness's
report and
you have to wonder why, the offense was dissent why change it?

Indeed but the referee has to take the case on its merits, the SRT case was very
similar to the
Atherton case and received similar treatment (although he wasn't further penalized by
his board).
When the umpires reported 4 of the Indian players for dissent and one for abusive
language as
well, what was he to do? Would you have him ignore it because one other player had
already
been charged. Earlier this year the Indian referee (H Singh) under similar
circumstances penalised
several SL players and the captain, SL would have grounds for a complaint of
inconsistent officiating
if Denness had not penalised India. Just because a team mate has already been
penalised doesn't
give the rest of the team carte blanche to transgress because the referee can't give
multiple penalties.
SL didn't complain about taking the bulk of the penalties in that game, (additionally
the SL Wk and
Atherton were fined because of an altercation). It was that game, which got out of
the umpires' control
to a degree, which caused the ICC (as a whole) to come out with a directive to try to
prevent a recurrence
which is what India fell foul of, but they helped to draft it! Note that no RSA
players were reported
so was Denness supposed to pull in a few of them as a make-up call, that would have
been abuse of
his authority in my opinion.

You don't think that the fact that it was SRT had something to do with this? ;-)

Phil.

So you do agree with me about ICC incompetency then do you Moby?

Larrikin

>
> Moby.
>

Will Sutton called Mr. Darcy dishonest, which I believe, is far worse than
calling him naive.

-Samarth.

<old stuff snipped>

Was that match really that bad from 'spirit of the game' point of
view? I believe NOT. And therefore I consider it a bad decision to
penalise 6 from a team in that match. If there is a precedence to
that, that precedence too is bad. So IMHO if the on-field behaviour
was not too bad in that match, the MR could have restricted his
penalty to just 1 player rather than being too assertive to the extent
of suspending the captain in 2 ODIs as well. That would have set the
precedence and saved the entire cricketing world of those 10 days that
will continue to be debated.

There can be hundreds of arguments towards events associated with this
episode. I have seen posters picking from 'letter of the Law', 'spirit
of the game', 'natural justice' and many other criteria whatver
criteria fits their arguments at that point of time. IMHO, it is the
MR's decisions that has brought the game(at least that match) into
disrepute rather than any other on-field incident. The point will
continue to be argued if some player has shown "dissent" or
"disappointment" so long as there are no clear definitions. There was
one such incident in the present Aus-NZ match where the commentators
ultimately came to the conclusion that it was more "disappointment"
than "dissent". It is hard to draw such a line. What one expects
therefore is that there should at least be consistency if such a rule
is being applied. Frankly I consider this penalising for showing
dissent STUPID or sort of monarchical rule. If players accept umpire's
decision, that's it. How can you stop players from rejoicing/showing
disappointment as it is a game and not a diplomatic meeting! Penalise
if they don't accept the decision.

NO. Why would I? He just made a part of the whole episode.