Jadeja suspended for Pallekele Test

[chewy]

^^^ is the players' accumulated demerit points in public domain? Do ICC publish a list

 

[Trichromatic]

32 minutes ago, chewy said:

^^^ is the players' accumulated demerit points in public domain? Do ICC publish a list

 

They do make each punishment public separately and there is clear guidelines on level of offences and the punishment.

 

Quote

2.2.7 Throwing a ball (or any other item of cricket equipment such as a water bottle) at or near a Player, Player Support Personnel, Umpire, Match Referee or any other third person in an inappropriate and/or dangerous manner during an International Match. NOTE: This regulation will not prohibit a fielder or bowler from returning the ball to the stumps in the normal fashion.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-india-2017/content/story/1115565.html

 

Watch the video, even Saha got hurt with throw. No need of encouraging this on field.

 

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/445975

 

Quote

India’s Ravindra Jadeja has been suspended for the upcoming Pallekele Test after his accumulated demerit points reached six within a 24-month period following his latest breach of the ICC Code of Conduct for which he received a 50 per cent fine and three demerit points.

During the third day’s play in the Colombo Test against Sri Lanka on Saturday, Jadeja was found guilty of breaching article 2.2.8 of the ICC Code of Conduct for Player and Player Support Personnel, which relates to “throwing a ball (or any other item of cricket equipment such as a water bottle) at or near a Player, Player Support Personnel, Umpire, Match Referee or any other third person in an inappropriate and/or dangerous manner during an International Match”.

As Jadeja had received a 50 per cent fine and three demerit points during the Indore Test against New Zealand in October 2016 for violating 2.2.11 of the Code, with the addition of Saturday’s three demerit points, he has reached the threshold of four demerit points, which, pursuant to article 7.6 of the Code, have now been converted into two suspension points*.

As such, Jadeja has been suspended from his side’s third Test against Sri Lanka, which will be played in Pallekele from 12-16 August.

Following this suspension, the six demerit points will remain on Jadeja’s disciplinary record. If Jadeja reaches the next threshold of eight or more demerit points within a 24-month period, then they will be converted into four suspension points**.

Saturday’s incident happened on the final delivery of the 58^th over when Jadeja, after fielding off his own bowling, threw the ball back at the batsman who had not left his crease. The on-field umpires deemed the throwing “in a dangerous manner” as it narrowly missed Dimuth Karunaratne.

Jadeja admitted the offence and accepted the sanction proposed by Richie Richardson of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees and, as such, there was no need for a formal hearing.

The charge was laid by on-field umpires Bruce Oxenford and Rod Tucker, third umpire Richard Illingworth and fourth umpire Ruchira Palliyaguruge.

All level 2 breaches carry an imposition of a fine between 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the applicable match fee and/or up to two suspension points, and three or four demerit points.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

*Two suspension points equate to a ban from one Test or two ODIs or two T20Is, whatever comes first for the player.

** Four suspension points equate to a ban from two Tests or four ODIs or four T20Is, whatever comes first for the player.

Details of ICC Code of Conduct breaches can be found here.

Details of Jadeja’s first offense are as follows: 

• Match – third Test vs New Zealand, Indore, 8-11 October 2016
• Charge – Level 2, Article 2.2.11, which relates to “causing avoidable damage to the pitch during an international match”.
• Proposed sanction – 50% fine and three demerit points, which was accepted by the player

 The BCCI was advised of the match referee’s decision by the ICC on 10 October 2016

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/445975

 

It's 2.2.8 of code of conduct, not 2.2.7

[Trichromatic]

17 hours ago, Gollum said:

ICC being ICC, white man's world. If same standards apply to England and Australia, guys like Stokes, Anderson, Smith and Starc will sit out half the time. Chalo koi baat nahee, will get to watch Kuldeep bowl now. 

What would have been reaction if Saha had been injured while trying stop wild, unnecessary throw from Jadeja? He took a blow and it was not good sight at all. 

[express bowling]

4 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

What would have been reaction if Saha had been injured while trying stop wild, unnecessary throw from Jadeja? He took a blow and it was not good sight at all. 

 

The issue being raised here is .... whether all teams are being treated equally here.

 

Look at the video @Mosher posted above.   Root did not get any demerit points.   Why   ?

 

No one is disputing the fact that dangerous throws need to be stopped... but that should apply to every team.

Edited August 7, 2017 by express bowling

[kubrickian]

52 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

The issue being raised here is .... whether all teams are being treated equally here.

 

Look at the video @Mosher posted above.   Root did not get any demerit points.   Why   ?

 

No one is disputing the fact that dangerous throws need to be stopped... but that applied to every team.

Yeah the double standards is the issue. Eng, Aus cricketers will never get punished for doing something similar.

[chewy]

50 minutes ago, kubrickian said:

Yeah the double standards is the issue. Eng, Aus cricketers will never get punished for doing something similar.

It called playing hard cricket, but if any non-gora do it then it is bringing the game into disrepute, lol

 

forget this jadeja incident, but the where Rabada said a swear word (only picked up

becoz of stump mic) which came after a a slight nudge to Dickwella (where he got a demerit point last time), resulted him missing one Test match

both were non-events, a match fee fine was enough

 

the demerit will turn the non-goras into soulless players...whilst the goras will as usual continue to play cricket with "passion, aggression and character"  

[putrevus]

The issue here is not Jadeja's suspension. The issue is preferential treatment given to players from England And Australia. Rabada and Jadeja got what they deserved under this system.

 

The bigger question is when will ICC give equal treatment to all players.Why  Root or Smith  have not accumulated any demerit points.Root's throw or Smith's cheating occurred after Jadeja's incident against NZ.

[Pollack]

There is apparently double standards by ICC. Closet racists.

 

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, chewy said:

It called playing hard cricket, but if any non-gora do it then it is bringing the game into disrepute, lol

 

forget this jadeja incident, but the where Rabada said a swear word (only picked up

becoz of stump mic) which came after a a slight nudge to Dickwella (where he got a demerit point last time), resulted him missing one Test match

both were non-events, a match fee fine was enough

 

the demerit will turn the non-goras into soulless players...whilst the goras will as usual continue to play cricket with "passion, aggression and character"  

Luckily system is not so random to hand over punishments randomly. Demerit points system is in place and Rabada was banned after he accumulated points over the time. 

 

https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/ICC/document/2017/01/09/9e2e026d-b914-4bc2-9a27-5592567d0bb0/Code-of-Conduct-for-Players-and-Player-Support-Personnel-Effective-22-September-2016.pdf

 

How players are reported may be debatable, but punishments aren't. No one decides like ok, today this looks like non-event, award a match fine of 50, no 10, no ok 15% and close the case.

 

 

 

.Even if just match fine is imposed, but player will still collect demerit point and if he has accumulated enough points he will be banned.

 

 

[Trichromatic]

3 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

The issue being raised here is .... whether all teams are being treated equally here.

 

Look at the video @Mosher posted above.   Root did not get any demerit points.   Why   ?

 

No one is disputing the fact that dangerous throws need to be stopped... but that should apply to every team.

Root got away with it. But it's not the case with other players from England or Australia

 

Here is the full list

 

https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/code-of-conduct

 

[putrevus]

Is there any link to check how many demerit points each has accumulated?

[Trichromatic]

57 minutes ago, putrevus said:

The issue here is not Jadeja's suspension. The issue is preferential treatment given to players from England And Australia. Rabada and Jadeja got what they deserved under this system.

 

The bigger question is when will ICC give equal treatment to all players.Why  Root or Smith  have not accumulated any demerit points.Root's throw or Smith's cheating occurred after Jadeja's incident against NZ.

Under what rules Smith could have been punished? Root clearly escaped, but other English players are not so lucky.

[Trichromatic]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

Is there any link to check how many demerit points each has accumulated?

https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/code-of-conduct

 

This links shows all demerit points since the system was placed.

[putrevus]

Just now, Trichromatic said:

Under what rules Smith could have been punished? Root clearly escaped, but other English players are not so lucky.

Is this enough explanation. You can name it anything you want, umpire specifically told Smith in that instance you cannot ask dressing room for help. Brainfade is term Mr. Smith used but that can used by all other players like Jadeja and Rabada.

 

Justice if it is not same for everyone is no justice at all.

 

2.1 Level 1 Offences:
2.1.1 Conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game.

2.1.2 Conduct that brings the game into disrepute.
 

[Trichromatic]

4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Is this enough explanation. You can name it anything you want, umpire specifically told Smith in that instance you cannot ask dressing room for help. Brainfade is term Mr. Smith used but that can used by all other players like Jadeja and Rabada.

 

Justice if it is not same for everyone is no justice at all.

 

2.1 Level 1 Offences:
2.1.1 Conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game.

2.1.2 Conduct that brings the game into disrepute.
 

In that case umpires are suppose to decline the review. There is no other punishment.

 

Quote

If the umpires believe that the captain or batsman has received direct or indirect input emanating other than from the players on the field, then they may at their discretion decline the request for a Player Review. In particular, signals from the dressing room must not be given.

When penalty for this is already specified then why would umpires impose extra punishments? You certainly can't be awarded extra punishment just because your action was not right.

[putrevus]

15 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

In that case umpires are suppose to decline the review. There is no other punishment.

 

When penalty for this is already specified then why would umpires impose extra punishments? You certainly can't be awarded extra punishment just because your action was not right.

You think Kohli was idiot to bring cheating in PC. Smith's actions clearly were not  in the spirit of the game. Granting or denying him review in that case has no bearing of his actions.

Article 2.1.1 is intended to cover all types of conduct of a minor nature that is contrary to the spirit of the game. When a player that too a captain  specifically ask dressing room for help in reviewing, Smith should have suspended for that action alone.

 

The problem is all Asian match referees are reluctant to punish players from Australia or England. in case of Smith Chris Broad was referee  enough said about that guy., I have no idea how in world did that guy become match referee.He was epitome of player who had no spirit or civility. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by putrevus

[express bowling]

10 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

In that case umpires are suppose to decline the review. There is no other punishment.

 

When penalty for this is already specified then why would umpires impose extra punishments? You certainly can't be awarded extra punishment just because your action was not right.

 

Declining a review because outside help was sought, is not a punishment.

 

The fact that outside help is being sought means the team is not confident about reviewing it and may not have done anyway without external confirmation.

 

 

[Trichromatic]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Declining a review because outside help was sought, is not a punishment.

 

The fact that outside help is being sought means the team is not confident about reviewing it and may not have done anyway without external confirmation.

 

 

 Beamers are just called no-ball with 1 warning no matter bowler throws it intentionally and a player is punished for throwing ball towards batsman in dangerous manner. Although it can be argued that both are similar offences, but punishments differ because it has already been mentioned what should be done in each case.

 

Can we draw an analogy there? Document says that umpires can decline reviews in such cases. So there is no case of other punishment here, unless it is specifically mentioned?

[Trichromatic]

13 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You think Kohli was idiot to bring cheating in PC. Smith's actions clearly were not  in the spirit of the game. Granting or denying him review in that case has no bearing of his actions.

Article 2.1.1 is intended to cover all types of conduct of a minor nature that is contrary to the spirit of the game. When a player that too a captain  specifically ask dressing room for help in reviewing, Smith should have suspended for that action alone.

 

The problem is all Asian match referees are reluctant to punish players from Australia or England. in case of Smith Chris Broad was referee  enough said about that guy., I have no idea how in world did that guy become match referee.He was epitome of player who had no spirit or civility. 

Agree with later part about Chris Broad. In fact you can look at the decision and guess who might be the referee. Srinath is kind of soft in his cases and goes for lower limits of punishments when he hearing any case. Same is  case with Madugalle. Broad is biased and that's not a secret.

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 Beamers are just called no-ball with 1 warning no matter bowler throws it intentionally and a player is punished for throwing ball towards batsman in dangerous manner. Although it can be argued that both are similar offences, but punishments differ because it has already been mentioned what should be done in each case.

 

Can we draw an analogy there? Document says that umpires can decline reviews in such cases. So there is no case of other punishment here, unless it is specifically mentioned?

You analogy is wrong, bowling a beamer is a common occurrence and can happen by accident also. Asking for help in review process is a big no no even a child knows it.Umpires declining it is not punishment, it is just making sure they were doing their job .