Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[fineleg]

this is the BS of BS...
http://ia.rediff.com/cricket/2006/jun/10icc.htm

[fineleg]

ICC defends Lara's behaviour

PTI | June 10, 2006 | 19:28 IST


The ICC?on Saturday?came up with a ridiculous explanation in defence of the petulant behaviour of Brian Lara during the first cricket Test against India when he snatched the ball from Pakistani umpire Asad Rauf and waggled his finger at him.

"Lara showed a little frustration but it was borne out of circumstances," ICC's General Manager-Cricket Dave Richardson said.

"Lara is a renowned player, a famed cricketer. He got frustrated (after) the umpire forced the players to make a decision. He did get a little frustrated, snatching the ball from the umpire, but he certainly did not show dissent," he told NDTV.

Richardson also sought to justify the fine imposed on Virender Sehwag for prematurely celebrating a dismissal.

"The Sehwag incident was unfortunate. ICC wants to cut down on excessive appealing. We want to prevent players, tell them not to put too much pressure on umpires. In Sehwag's incident, it was a case of not appealing. He slipped up (on that account)."

On the controversial Dhoni dismissal, he said he had never come across such an incident -- be it in his playing days or as an administrator.

"It (the incident) was quite unique. No decision was made. The TV umpire said he could not make a decision, the on field umpires said we can't make a decision either. Lara tried to facilitate an agreement (which) was not the right way."

[fineleg]

what will they saw if Indians when bowling/fielding want to " tried to facilitate an agreement" like Lara did becos indians got "bit frustrated"?


Bans, fines...

[LosingNow]

Sorry, appears like we boht were creating this topic .. Mods please delete mine

Cross-posting from the other one
--
I'm just rolling on the floor with laughter..

Paraphrasing Gabbar .. "Arre O Sambha, suna hai ki ICC ne Gadhon ki Fauz banayi hai" 
 
 

[pieterSAN]

Apparently Dave Richardson Is Not Beyond Kissing Brian Lara's Ass.
by Coco Rumm, Island Times

"He is a famed cricketer with a lot of women behind him and that makes his life difficult. He got a little frustrated at all the sixes being hit and the fact that he could not get Dhoni out", he said.

Richardson also said that he thought that Lara had other concerns such as Trinidad playing in the WC. "Dwight Yorke does not have Beckham to  assist him on scoring goals. This has bothered Lara for a few years"

"You have understand this is a very important man that ICC cannot affor to piss off. He has a lot of fans and without him, let's face it, the West Indies team makes for poor watching. It would be like Argenitina in 1986 without Diego Maradona."

Richardson also said that he spoke with Rahul Dravid explaining the decision. "I am pleased to say that he was very understanding and that sometimes children need to be indulged."

[vijay]

Apparently Dave Richardson Is Not Beyond Kissing Brian Lara's Ass.
by Coco Rumm, Island Times

"He is a famed cricketer with a lot of women behind him and that makes his life difficult. He got a little frustrated at all the sixes being hit and the fact that he could not get Dhoni out", he said.

Richardson also said that he thought that Lara had other concerns such as Trinidad playing in the WC. "Dwight Yorke does not have Beckham to  assist him on scoring goals. This has bothered Lara for a few years"

"You have understand this is a very important man that ICC cannot affor to piss off. He has a lot of fans and without him, let's face it, the West Indies team makes for poor watching. It would be like Argenitina in 1986 without Diego Maradona."

Richardson also said that he spoke with Rahul Dravid explaining the decision. "I am pleased to say that he was very understanding and that sometimes children need to be indulged."

LOL. Good one Jiet. Now lets teach this little child how to lose gracefully.

[justforkix]

Richardson also sought to justify the fine imposed on Virender Sehwag for prematurely celebrating a dismissal.

"The Sehwag incident was unfortunate. ICC wants to cut down on excessive appealing. We want to prevent players, tell them not to put too much pressure on umpires. In Sehwag's incident, it was a case of not appealing. He slipped up (on that account)."

This is even more hilarious. A Brilliant piece of logic. Richardson got a F in Logic 101 I guess 

[Cernunnos]

"Lara is a renowned player, a famed cricketer. He got frustrated (after) the umpire forced the players to make a decision. He did get a little frustrated, snatching the ball from the umpire, but he certainly did not show dissent," he told NDTV.

Sigh.

1) Lara snatched the ball to get on with the game, not to stall it, that's why he went straight to Dave Mo at his bowling run-up. So unless you have the transcripts of what was said between the players and the umpires, there is no way of telling whether what he said was dissent or not.

2) The umpires were free to report to the match referee. The Indian manager was free to report to the match referee.
Neither of them did so. If you want to blame anybody, you should direct your ire at them.

3) Prior history *should* be taken into account before fining/suspending players, that is only fair. Lara has
an impeccable record on that accord. So nothing wrong in taking into account Lara's "renown". That is why the ICC was incredibly stupid to ban Sehwag in his very first test. That is why ICC was incredibly biased in not taking any action against serial offenders like McGrath. But in this case, they have a point.

4) The Sehwag not looking back at the umpire is an open and shut case of overappealing as it is *specifically* mentioned in the Code of Conduct, and not acting on it would have been impossible for the match referee. Yes, we will have to see whether similar such instances of not looking back at the umpire are equally dealt with.

[justforkix]

4) The Sehwag not looking back at the umpire is an open and shut case of dissent as it is *specifically* mentioned in the Code of Conduct, and not acting on it would have been impossible for the match referee. Yes, we will have to see whether similar such instances of not looking back at the umpire are equally dealt with.

Just FYI: Pedro Collins did not appeal today when VVS and Jaffer edged the ball to WK and slips. Letz see if there is any action against him 

[Cernunnos]

4) The Sehwag not looking back at the umpire is an open and shut case of dissent as it is *specifically* mentioned in the Code of Conduct, and not acting on it would have been impossible for the match referee. Yes, we will have to see whether similar such instances of not looking back at the umpire are equally dealt with.

Just FYI: Pedro Collins did not appeal today when VVS and Jaffer edged the ball to WK and slips. Letz see if there is any action against him 

I saw the Sehwag incident and it was pretty open and shut. Comms immediately said that he would get to hear from the match ref. I didnt see today's game, but I will take your word for it. Let's see if any action is taken.

[craj123]

3) Prior history *should* be taken into account before fining/suspending players, that is only fair. Lara has
an impeccable record on that accord. So nothing wrong in taking into account Lara's "renown". That is why the ICC was incredibly stupid to ban Sehwag in his very first test. That is why ICC was incredibly biased in not taking any action against serial offenders like McGrath. But in this case, they have a point.

2004 - West Indies v England, 2nd Test, 19th-23rd March 2004 at Port of Spain -
Breach of Code 1.3 - Showing dissent at an umpire’s decision by action or verbal abuse. Fined 50% of match fee.
http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/penalties/2004.html

1994 -  WI v NZ ODI, 26 October 1994 at Goa -
Breach of Code 3 - showed dissent after being givenout stumped. Fined 50% of match fee, suspended fornext match in triangular competition and severe reprimand.
http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/penalties/1994.html

Impeccable record, indeed........

[ruchir]

1) Lara snatched the ball to get on with the game, not to stall it, that's why he went straight to Dave Mo at his bowling run-up. So unless you have the transcripts of what was said between the players and the umpires, there is no way of telling whether what he said was dissent or not.

Dear friend, the very act of *snatching the ball in anger* (as was seen on video) is an act of showing disrespect to the umpire. ICC rules are very clear about what punishment should be given when a player shows disrespect to the umpire. You know what else Lara did (in case you were not sleeping)? He argued with Dhoni, he argued with umpires decision, he showed umpire his back when called and he held up the game. Each event is punishable under ICC rule book. So, unless you are living in another world or reading a different rule-book, your logic seems very very strange. Whatever words that were said are irrelevant. Lara's actions seen on video are enough to punish him.

2) The umpires were free to report to the match referee. The Indian manager was free to report to the match referee.

Umpires are fool and Indian manager has already proved himslef to be the biggest fool of all. So, if they don't report the incident it is not a surprise. Umpires after all want to deflect the attention from themselves. What better way than to divert it to Lara not being fined? Simple, isn't it?

3) Prior history *should* be taken into account before fining/suspending players, that is only fair. Lara has
an impeccable record on that accord. So nothing wrong in taking into account Lara's "renown". That is why the ICC was incredibly stupid to ban Sehwag in his very first test. That is why ICC was incredibly biased in not taking any action against serial offenders like McGrath. But in this case, they have a point.

Dear friend, ICC has a rule book and it consistently says that rules are applied same to all players. There is nothing in the rule book that says that rules should be applied in different manner to different people. Appliying it differently is the MOST RIDICULOUS argument ever, I have heard. So, you are saying that because Lara has a good prior record, he should be excused even though he is clearly breaking the rules? Isn't that ridiculous? Why should Lara be trated differently from other players? There is a rule and it is supposed to be applied universally. That is what ICC says. So saying that Lara is renowed and has good record is nothing by STUPIDITY.



Sometimes, or make it all the times, you sound like a person who never finds any thing good to say about the indian team. I would wonder if you ever look at this team without anti-GC tinted glasses or not? Or anything that happens with the team under GC has to be bad, going on to worse.

[Cernunnos]

1) Lara snatched the ball to get on with the game, not to stall it, that's why he went straight to Dave Mo at his bowling run-up. So unless you have the transcripts of what was said between the players and the umpires, there is no way of telling whether what he said was dissent or not.

Dear friend, the very act of *snatching the ball in anger* (as was seen on video) is an act of showing disrespect to the umpire. ICC rules are very clear about what punishment should be given when a player shows disrespect to the umpire. You know what else Lara did (in case you were not sleeping)? He argued with Dhoni, he argued with umpires decision, he showed umpire his back when called and he held up the game. Each event is punishable under ICC rule book. So, unless you are living in another world or reading a different rule-book, your logic seems very very strange. Whatever words that were said are irrelevant. Lara's actions seen on video are enough to punish him.

Yes, it *may* constitute dissent. That's why I said earlier I have no problems if he was fined. OTOH I have no problems if the ICC doesn't think it was dissent either. Do you know for sure that a judgement was given by the umpires? If Dhoni was not out, it was a six. Did you see the umpire signal six? If not, how can there be dissent if an umpire did not give a decision?  What was happening was that the umpires left it to the players to decide amongst themselves, so naturally Lara would confer with Dhoni and explain the situation to him.

2) The umpires were free to report to the match referee. The Indian manager was free to report to the match referee.

Umpires are fool and Indian manager has already proved himslef to be the biggest fool of all. So, if they don't report the incident it is not a surprise. Umpires after all want to deflect the attention from themselves. What better way than to divert it to Lara not being fined? Simple, isn't it?

Going by your logic, no umpire would ever report a player. But then again everyone are fools and you are the only smart dude around.

3) Prior history *should* be taken into account before fining/suspending players, that is only fair. Lara has
an impeccable record on that accord. So nothing wrong in taking into account Lara's "renown". That is why the ICC was incredibly stupid to ban Sehwag in his very first test. That is why ICC was incredibly biased in not taking any action against serial offenders like McGrath. But in this case, they have a point.

Dear friend, ICC has a rule book and it consistently says that rules are applied same to all players. There is nothing in the rule book that says that rules should be applied in different manner to different people. Appliying it differently is the MOST RIDICULOUS argument ever, I have heard. So, you are saying that because Lara has a good prior record, he should be excused even though he is clearly breaking the rules? Isn't that ridiculous? Why should Lara be trated differently from other players? There is a rule and it is supposed to be applied universally. That is what ICC says. So saying that Lara is renowed and has good record is nothing by STUPIDITY.

In real life, not everything is so cut and dried. You think it was a clear transgression, I think it was on the borderline. If certain things are on the borderline, I expect recent history to be taken into account. Conversely, if the offender is clearly transgressing repeatedly, I expect the penalties to get increasingly severe.

Sometimes, or make it all the times, you sound like a person who never finds any thing good to say about the indian team. I would wonder if you ever look at this team without anti-GC tinted glasses or not? Or anything that happens with the team under GC has to be bad, going on to worse.

Lol.

[ruchir]

Yes, it *may* constitute dissent. That's why I said earlier I have no problems if he was fined. OTOH I have no problems if the ICC doesn't think it was dissent either. Do you know for sure that a judgement was given by the umpires? If Dhoni was not out, it was a six. Did you see the umpire signal six? If not, how can there be dissent if an umpire did not give a decision?  What was happening was that the umpires left it to the players to decide amongst themselves, so naturally Lara would confer with Dhoni and explain the situation to him.

Were you following the match on live video? Rauf confered with the 3rd umpire, and then asked Lara and Dhoni to continue with the game by speaking words and making hand gestures. Did you miss that? So, Rauf made a decision there. If Lara objects to that decision, then THAT and everything he does afterwords constitutes as DISSENT. Rauf did not leave it to the players to decide. Lara objected to his decision and HE started a conversation with Rauf and Dhoni. After he snatched the ball, Rauf called him back twice, but Lara turned his back to him. If that is not CLEAR DISSENT then I am blind. So, don't act innocent and naive that a judgement was not given and Rauf invited Lara for a conference. Talk to anyone who has seen this incident live.

Going by your logic, no umpire would ever report a player. But then again everyone are fools and you are the only smart dude around.

In this case, I am smarter than Taufel, Rauf and Doctor blind. These 3 blind musketeers clearly did not manage the situation well and that resulted in Lara breaking nearly every discipline realted rule in ICC rule book. But then if these 3 blind guys had reported Lara, then Jeff Crowe would have had to interview him and everything done by 3 blind bats would have been recorded officially. A big black spot on their career chart. Who would want that? So, they let Lara go to save themselves from embarrestment. Usually, umpires don't make this kind of a mess. So they report every untoward thing happening on field. Unlike this case, that was messed up by umpires and they let Lara escape. I am smart enough to see through their *.

In real life, not everything is so cut and dried. You think it was a clear transgression, I think it was on the borderline. If certain things are on the borderline, I expect recent history to be taken into account. Conversely, if the offender is clearly transgressing repeatedly, I expect the penalties to get increasingly severe.

Why is everything not so cut and dried in real life? Wasn't Sehwag banned with dissent in SA for over-appealing? He was a newcomer then. Wasn't Sachin punished for tampering with ball's seam? In his 16 year career, that is the only incident where he was reported; and that too FALSELY. Wasn't Dravid punished for applying sticky substance (chewing gum) on the ball? Like Sahcin, that was the only incident (again FALSELY REPORTED) in his career. So why was their HISTORY not taken into consideration before punishing them? Why should Lara's history be taken into consideration? Indian players, allegedly, broke only one rule, here Lara has commited atleast 4-5 different crimes. Still he should go scot-free? Because of his prior history; which is not better, in any way, than that of SRT or RD? This is one of the strangest logic I have heard. BTW, ICC takes immense pride in saying that they apply rules universally, without prejudice. Whenever anyone talks about bias and racism in ICC, they say that they apply their rules same to everyone. So how can you talk about things being different in real life ?? ?? ?? Are you saying that it is OK for ICC to practice bias and racism in real life ?? ?? And what is this talk of *borderline*?? Either you have broken the rule or you have not?? What is this BORDERLINE stuff ??

Lol.

Is that the *gotcha* laugh, that you caught me speaking truth about you??

[kwatra]

Yes, it *may* constitute dissent. That's why I said earlier I have no problems if he was fined. OTOH I have no problems if the ICC doesn't think it was dissent either. Do you know for sure that a judgement was given by the umpires? If Dhoni was not out, it was a six. Did you see the umpire signal six? If not, how can there be dissent if an umpire did not give a decision?  What was happening was that the umpires left it to the players to decide amongst themselves, so naturally Lara would confer with Dhoni and explain the situation to him.

Were you following the match on live video? Rauf confered with the 3rd umpire, and then asked Lara and Dhoni to continue with the game by speaking words and making hand gestures. Did you miss that? So, Rauf made a decision there. If Lara objects to that decision, then THAT and everything he does afterwords constitutes as DISSENT. Rauf did not leave it to the players to decide. Lara objected to his decision and HE started a conversation with Rauf and Dhoni. After he snatched the ball, Rauf called him back twice, but Lara turned his back to him. If that is not CLEAR DISSENT then I am blind. So, don't act innocent and naive that a judgement was not given and Rauf invited Lara for a conference. Talk to anyone who has seen this incident live.

Ruchir is right IMHO! Here is a clip of the incident. Rauf clearly asks everyone to get on with the game, and that is when Lara starts talking... AFTER Rauf made a decision the FIRST time.. <a href="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8166261049629709556" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8166261049629709556</a>

[keep-it-cool]

Cern, once again, just to make it clear ... THE INDIAN MANAGER OR TEAM CANNOT COMPLAIN TO THE MATCH REFREE ABOUT A DISSENT ISSUE. IT HAS TO BE THE UMPIRES ON THE FIELD. Hope you keep that in mind before making statements such as "the Indian manager was free to report it to the match refree".

And, another important fact that seems to have slipped into the crack. Asad Rauf, when asked why he did not report Lara, did not say that it was a non issue or that there was no dissent. He said there was a "lack of visual evidence". Apparently, the cameras being used by the third umpire and the match refree are not the Ten Sports feed that we get live (this was confirmed in the Straight Drive programme). It is another feed; probably local. And pictures of this entire incident between Lara and the umpires was apparently not available for review!!! Hence, it was not referred.

[pieterSAN]

Cern, once again, just to make it clear ... THE INDIAN MANAGER OR TEAM CANNOT COMPLAIN TO THE MATCH REFREE ABOUT A DISSENT ISSUE. IT HAS TO BE THE UMPIRES ON THE FIELD. Hope you keep that in mind before making statements such as "the Indian manager was free to report it to the match refree".

And, another important fact that seems to have slipped into the crack. Asad Rauf, when asked why he did not report Lara, did not say that it was a non issue or that there was no dissent. He said there was a "lack of visual evidence". Apparently, the cameras being used by the third umpire and the match refree are not the Ten Sports feed that we get live (this was confirmed in the Straight Drive programme). It is another feed; probably local. And pictures of this entire incident between Lara and the umpires was apparently not available for review!!! Hence, it was not referred.

Excellent post KIC. Great work.

Whoever uploaded the video also added the nice touch of a baby crying in the background. Excellent!! Made my day!!!

[Cernunnos]

Yes, it *may* constitute dissent. That's why I said earlier I have no problems if he was fined. OTOH I have no problems if the ICC doesn't think it was dissent either. Do you know for sure that a judgement was given by the umpires? If Dhoni was not out, it was a six. Did you see the umpire signal six? If not, how can there be dissent if an umpire did not give a decision?  What was happening was that the umpires left it to the players to decide amongst themselves, so naturally Lara would confer with Dhoni and explain the situation to him.

Were you following the match on live video? Rauf confered with the 3rd umpire, and then asked Lara and Dhoni to continue with the game by speaking words and making hand gestures. Did you miss that? So, Rauf made a decision there.

That is your version, which I too thought was the case initially. But I saw the video again and I changed my mind. It didn't look like Rauf had talked with any of the players till that point. Rauf could as well have been asking Dhoni and Ganga to congregate to get everyone's views in the presence of the captain. There was a move to take a consensus view. This is confirmed by the Telegraph's report :

"Standing umpire Asad Rauf, unsure if Ganga had overstepped the boundary line, asked third umpire Billy Doctrove to make a call. But Doctrove was “stumped” to see that TV cameras showed the fielder catching the ball, but did not cover his legs. He told Rauf and Simon Taufel that because of inconclusive replays, he was unable to make up his mind. Apparently, a suggestion was made that the players (the fielder and the batsman) decide as to whether the catch was clean or not."

We then see that Lara explains the situation to Dhoni (which you call "arguing") right under the gaze of the umpire. It's obvious that the conferral was authorized by the umpire.

What is beyond doubt is that had he finalized a decision that Dhoni was not out, then he would have signalled Six. Since he didn't signal Six, or Out, there was no official decision. End of story.

If Lara objects to that decision, then THAT and everything he does afterwords constitutes as DISSENT. Rauf did not leave it to the players to decide. Lara objected to his decision and HE started a conversation with Rauf and Dhoni. After he snatched the ball, Rauf called him back twice, but Lara turned his back to him. If that is not CLEAR DISSENT then I am blind. So, don't act innocent and naive that a judgement was not given and Rauf invited Lara for a conference. Talk to anyone who has seen this incident live.

All this is moot.

Going by your logic, no umpire would ever report a player. But then again everyone are fools and you are the only smart dude around.

In this case, I am smarter than Taufel, Rauf and Doctor blind. These 3 blind musketeers clearly did not manage the situation well and that resulted in Lara breaking nearly every discipline realted rule in ICC rule book. But then if these 3 blind guys had reported Lara, then Jeff Crowe would have had to interview him and everything done by 3 blind bats would have been recorded officially. A big black spot on their career chart. Who would want that? So, they let Lara go to save themselves from embarrestment. Usually, umpires don't make this kind of a mess. So they report every untoward thing happening on field. Unlike this case, that was messed up by umpires and they let Lara escape. I am smart enough to see through their *.

Whatever. As I said it's better to direct your ire at the umpires or manager than the ICC in *this* instance.

In real life, not everything is so cut and dried. You think it was a clear transgression, I think it was on the borderline. If certain things are on the borderline, I expect recent history to be taken into account. Conversely, if the offender is clearly transgressing repeatedly, I expect the penalties to get increasingly severe.

Why is everything not so cut and dried in real life? Wasn't Sehwag banned with dissent in SA for over-appealing? He was a newcomer then. Wasn't Sachin punished for tampering with ball's seam? In his 16 year career, that is the only incident where he was reported; and that too FALSELY. Wasn't Dravid punished for applying sticky substance (chewing gum) on the ball? Like Sahcin, that was the only incident (again FALSELY REPORTED) in his career. So why was their HISTORY not taken into consideration before punishing them? Why should Lara's history be taken into consideration? Indian players, allegedly, broke only one rule, here Lara has commited atleast 4-5 different crimes. Still he should go scot-free? Because of his prior history; which is not better, in any way, than that of SRT or RD? This is one of the strangest logic I have heard. BTW, ICC takes immense pride in saying that they apply rules universally, without prejudice. Whenever anyone talks about bias and racism in ICC, they say that they apply their rules same to everyone. So how can you talk about things being different in real life ?? ?? ?? Are you saying that it is OK for ICC to practice bias and racism in real life ?? ?? And what is this talk of *borderline*?? Either you have broken the rule or you have not?? What is this BORDERLINE stuff ??

Where have you seen me defending ICC on those cases you mentioned? I had strongly criticized the ICC during the Sehwag/SRT incident to the extent that I supported the Indian Board's revolt against the ICC.
 
The ICC has very low credibility in my eyes. Even so, that doesn't mean I will always attack the ICC in whatever they do and blindly cry bias each time my team is at the receiving end. Since you obviously don't have the capability of seeing things beyond the duality of black and white, I don't expect you to understand my position.

[Cernunnos]

Cern, once again, just to make it clear ... THE INDIAN MANAGER OR TEAM CANNOT COMPLAIN TO THE MATCH REFREE ABOUT A DISSENT ISSUE. IT HAS TO BE THE UMPIRES ON THE FIELD. Hope you keep that in mind before making statements such as "the Indian manager was free to report it to the match refree".

REALLY?

A dissent is a breach of the Rules of Conduct (1.7).

The Code of Conduct says:

E. The Reporting/Notification Procedure
1. General
1.1 An alleged breach of the Rules of Conduct can be reported by:
(a) the umpires, including the third or any further umpires appointed for a Test Match, ODI Match
or a Tour Match;
(b) the team manager, either on his own behalf or on behalf of any of his Players participating in a
Test Match, ODI Match or a Tour Match;

And, another important fact that seems to have slipped into the crack. Asad Rauf, when asked why he did not report Lara, did not say that it was a non issue or that there was no dissent. He said there was a "lack of visual evidence". Apparently, the cameras being used by the third umpire and the match refree are not the Ten Sports feed that we get live (this was confirmed in the Straight Drive programme). It is another feed; probably local. And pictures of this entire incident between Lara and the umpires was apparently not available for review!!! Hence, it was not referred.

May ask what is the source of  this "lack of visual evidence" story?

The person lodging the complaint can bring up video evidence as long as he informs everyone involved about it beforehand.
(G.5(b)) Are you saying it's that difficult for the team manager to obtain the video?
 

[Shukla]

Cern. Applause.

[keep-it-cool]

Cern,

Thanks for correcting me .. was not aware that the Indian team manager could also complain. In that case, I think he should have. However, the team may decide to let it rest. An umpire doing so is even more difficult to understand.

On the source for the "lack of visual evidence" story, please see link below.

http://ww1.mid-day.com/sports/international/2006/june/138826.htm

Also, on the first day of Test 2, this was being discussed by the AIR commentary team that is currently in WI. This was the reason provided by Asad Rauf on being asked the reason for not registering a complaint - apparently you cannot use *any* video evidence and the visuals that had to be made available were, surprisingly, not available at all. You may or may not agree with the view that Lara was wrong, but the umpires did not complain because of this lack of evidence rather than a view that Lara did not cross the line.

And, then maybe, the Indian team manager also failed to register a complaint for this lack of evidence. Although, here I think it is more likely because the two captains agreed to let the thing go.

[ruchir]

That is your version, which I too thought was the case initially. But I saw the video again and I changed my mind. It didn't look like Rauf had talked with any of the players till that point. Rauf could as well have been asking Dhoni and Ganga to congregate to get everyone's views in the presence of the captain. There was a move to take a consensus view. This is confirmed by the Telegraph's report :

"Standing umpire Asad Rauf, unsure if Ganga had overstepped the boundary line, asked third umpire Billy Doctrove to make a call. But Doctrove was “stumped” to see that TV cameras showed the fielder catching the ball, but did not cover his legs. He told Rauf and Simon Taufel that because of inconclusive replays, he was unable to make up his mind. Apparently, a suggestion was made that the players (the fielder and the batsman) decide as to whether the catch was clean or not."

We then see that Lara explains the situation to Dhoni (which you call "arguing") right under the gaze of the umpire. It's obvious that the conferral was authorized by the umpire.

What is beyond doubt is that had he finalized a decision that Dhoni was not out, then he would have signalled Six. Since he didn't signal Six, or Out, there was no official decision. End of story.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

You are basing your argument on a selected piece of item from who else - The Telegraph. Even there, this part amused me the most -- Apparently, a suggestion was made that the players (the fielder and the batsman) decide as to whether the catch was clean or not. Would you be kind enough to tell me WHO sggested that players decide among themselves whether the catch was clean or not?? Was it Rauf, Taufel or Doctor ?? And how was this suggestion communicated to the players ?? No one in the world saw Rauf telling players, in any form of communication, that they can reach any decision they want to. BTW, who told this correspeondent of The Telegraph, what conversation happened in the middle ?? It has never come out in print. So, how did this reporter know what was happeneing? Did he have a Laser Mic or something? Or did he have hearing capabilities of a fox??

And under what logic are you saying that Lara talking to Dhoni had acceptance of umpires??? Any player can talk to anyone on the field, he doesn't need umpires permission for doing it. Why did Lara need umpire's permission?? And if Lara is talking to Dhoni, why is it taken for granted that umpire HAS given his permission?? Talking can be done without permission too. Umpire is not going to catch Lara by his collars and haul him away from Dhoni because he is talking to Dhoni without permission.

Please, don't come up with such wiered logic and selective paragraphs from newspaper sites. Specially, when the selected paragrpah contain NO facts, only assumptions made by the correspondent.

All this is moot.

Again, all this is moot because it suits you and you don't have anything to say to refute it.

Whatever. As I said it's better to direct your ire at the umpires or manager than the ICC in *this* instance.

It is ICC who selects the umpires and match refrees. So we just can't stop at umpires. The blame always goes to the top. Had ICC forced the umpires to enforce all the rules universally, this situation would not have happened. The day ICC starts DEMOTING umpires based on their failures, we will see a big positive change in umpiring standards.

[Cernunnos]

Cern,

Thanks for correcting me ..

No problems, glad you accepted it.

was not aware that the Indian team manager could also complain. In that case, I think he should have. However, the team may decide to let it rest. An umpire doing so is even more difficult to understand.

On the source for the "lack of visual evidence" story, please see link below.

http://ww1.mid-day.com/sports/international/2006/june/138826.htm

Wow, it's hard to see how any credibility can be lent to this given the following gems:

1) Team manager can also report to the MR, not just umpires.
2) It's not 48 hours, but before the start of next day's play or 18 hours, whichever is sooner (E2.1).
3) "Television replays clearly indicated that the fielder had crossed the boundary line". What is this guy smoking?

Also, on the first day of Test 2, this was being discussed by the AIR commentary team that is currently in WI. This was the reason provided by Asad Rauf on being asked the reason for not registering a complaint - apparently you cannot use *any* video evidence and the visuals that had to be made available were, surprisingly, not available at all. You may or may not agree with the view that Lara was wrong, but the umpires did not complain because of this lack of evidence rather than a view that Lara did not cross the line.

I can't understand why there would be a lack of video evidence, when the video can be obtained by a simple request to the production company. When WI complained about Graeme Smith making racist remarks against them last year, the match referee (I think it was Crowe himself) went through video evidence to absolve him. It is pretty routine to look up at video evidence.

[Cernunnos]

You are basing your argument on a selected piece of item from who else - The Telegraph.

I am basing it on my own eyes. Since it was not signalled Six or Out, no decision was officially made. The Telegraph report just corroborates my view.

Please, don't come up with such wiered logic and selective paragraphs from newspaper sites. Specially, when the selected paragrpah contain NO facts, only assumptions made by the correspondent.

As opposed to the "facts" you have been providing.

Again, all this is moot because it suits you and you don't have anything to say to refute it.

I have said many things. While your complete silence on why the umpire did not signal a Six speaks for itself.

Whatever. As I said it's better to direct your ire at the umpires or manager than the ICC in *this* instance.

It is ICC who selects the umpires and match refrees. So we just can't stop at umpires. The blame always goes to the top. Had ICC forced the umpires to enforce all the rules universally, this situation would not have happened. The day ICC starts DEMOTING umpires based on their failures, we will see a big positive change in umpiring standards.

That is a broader issue. I couldn't agree more that the on-field umpires screwed up big time on the decision. But here we were talking about the umpires not reporting Lara for dissent.

On a seperate note, I think the ICC should demote Taufel immediately for publicly displaying his ignorance of the rules.

[pieterSAN]

On a seperate note, I think the ICC should demote Taufel immediately for publicly displaying his ignorance of the rules.

ROFLMAO...

If you have not noticed, the ICC is struggling to find half-decent umpires to form the "Elite Panel". Demoting Taufel who is the most repected of the lot by the players and the most accurate by far would be a joke.

....come to think of it - that sounds like something that the ICC would do!!!

[keep-it-cool]

On a seperate note, I think the ICC should demote Taufel immediately for publicly displaying his ignorance of the rules.

ROFLMAO...

If you have not noticed, the ICC is struggling to find half-decent umpires to form the "Elite Panel". Demoting Taufel who is the most repected of the lot by the players and the most accurate by far would be a joke.

....come to think of it - that sounds like something that the ICC would do!!!

Folks like us have no hope Jiet ... we are just not on the same page as the ICC