EVERYTHING seemed to be going smoothly. South Africa and its captain Shaun Pollock finished the first Test in four days. It appeared that the home team would repeat the show in Port Elizabeth and clinch the series. In the seven days of the first and second Tests, South Africa had outclassed the Indians before the latter raised their level of performance to make it a true contest.
Two wickets by Javagal Srinath and one by Ajit Agarkar seemed to have prompted Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh, Deep Dasgupta and Shiv Sundar Das to believe that they could mount pressure on the South African batsmen. The offspinner and the close-in fielders had turned the heat on umpire Ian Howell to get "favourable verdicts" against Boeta Dippenaar and Lance Klusener. The same foursome tried their best to get rid of Jacques Kallis and Shaun Pollock. Their "excessive" appealing, which, as per the ICC code for players, "is intimidatory" and their approach to the umpire , while appealing, did not escape the attention of Mike Denness, the ICC match referee.
At tea time on the third day, Denness requested the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) to show him the portion in which Sachin Tendulkar was 'allegedly' trying to change the condition of the ball. Denness said that he did it after consulting the third umpire Rudi Koertzen. In fact, he asked the SABC to give him the relevant tapes. Denness has said in a written statement that he saw the video portion in which Tendulkar was trying to change the condition of the match ball at tea time. The other version is that it was a SABC cameraman who had prompted a former South African cricketer to bring it to the notice of the third umpire.
Tendulkar's reaction on November 18th night was: "It's strange. I am surprised," Denness held four separate hearings to comply with principles of natural justice as defined by the ICC Hand Book, consulted his employer and handed out punishments of varying degrees, but apparently, very harsh ones. Denness conveyed his decision to the players after the completion of play on the fourth day on November 19.
His complaints and decisions were:1. Sachin Tendulkar: For alleged interference with the match ball, thus changing its condition.
Match Referee's decision: By acting on the match ball, Tendulkar brought the game into disrepute (ICC Players and Team officials Code No. 2) and has been fined 75% of his match fee, plus a one Test ban suspended until the last day of December 2001.
Players and Team officials Code 2:"Players and/or Team Officials shall at no time engage in conduct unbecoming to their status which could bring them or the game of cricket into disrepute
2. Virender Sehwag: For alleged breach of ICC Players and Team Officials Code No. 3 and 4. Showing dissent at the umpire's decision and attempting to intimidate the umpire by charging.
Match Referee's decision: Sehwag fined 75% of his match fee plus a one Test match ban with immediate effect.
Players and Team officials Code No. 3:"Players and /or Team officials must at all times accept the umpire's decision and not show dissent at the umpire's decision.
Players and Team officials Code No. 4:"Players and /or Team officials shall not verbally abuse, assault, intimidate or attempt to assault or intimidate any umpire, spectator, referee, player or team official. Nor shall any player and/or team official engage in any conduct towards or speak to any other player, umpire, spectator, referee or team official in a manner which offends, insults, humiliates intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies the other person on the basis of that other person's race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin."
3. Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh, Deep Dasgupta, Shiv Sundar Das: For alleged breach of ICC players and Team officials Code 3. and 4. Showing dissent at the umpire's decision and attempting to intimidate the umpire by charging.
Match Referee's decision: Harbhajan, Shiv Sundar Das, Dasgupta fined 75% of their match fees plus a one Test match ban suspended until the last day of January 2002.
3.1 Virender Sehwag: For alleged breach of ICC Players and Team officials Code 5. Use of crude or abusive language.
Match Referee's decision: (Same as 2).4. Sourav Ganguly. For alleged breach of ICC Players and Team officials Code 1 and 2: Spirit of the game including conduct of on-field players and bringing the game into disrepute.
Match Referee's decision: Ganguly, so long as he remains captain of India, a one Test ban and two one-day internationals ban, suspended until the last day of January 2002.
Players and team officials Code No. 1: "The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws of Cricket."
Players and Team officials Code No. 2: "Players and /or Team Officials shall at no time engage in conduct unbecoming to their status which could bring the game into disrepute.
Laws of Cricket (2000 Code): Law 42. 1 (Fair and Unfair Play) - Responsibility of Captains:
The responsibility lies with the captains for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and additions of the game, as described in The Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket, as well as within the laws.
Law 42.3 Fair and Unfair Play: 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. (c) The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball. (d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall:
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsman that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award five penalty runs to the batting side.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as practicable to the Executive of the fielding side and any governing body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and the team concerned.
Comments
SHARE