Rohit Sharma fined for dissent

[manoj_admlab]

Peter English at the Gabba February 5, 2008 Rohit Sharma was fined 10% of his match fee for dissent after being incorrectly judged caught behind for 0 off Muttiah Muralitharan at the Gabba. Sharma was the second India batsman to remain camped to the crease following his dismissal over the past six weeks, but his punishment was stronger than Yuvraj Singh's following an in-depth pre-series discussion on behaviour by Jeff Crowe, the match referee. Crowe found Sharma, a first offender, guilty under section 1.3 of the ICC's code of conduct for "excessive, obvious disappointment at an umpire's decision and an obvious delay in leaving the wicket". The Sri Lankans were convinced Sharma had edged the ball to Kumar Sangakkara, but the replays showed Rudi Koertzen made a serious error. "The only reason I appeal is if I think the batsman's nicked it," Sangakkara said after the match. "I appeal and wait for a decision." Sharma, the No. 5, eventually departed after facing only two balls, but the decision did not affect the result as India reached 4 for 267 before rain ended the match. In the first Test of the series in Melbourne in December, Yuvraj escaped a similar charge when it was ruled he showed extreme disappointment rather than dissent following a catch to Adam Gilchrist. Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/335131.html

[yoda]

How about fining Rudi for incompetence?

[IndianRenegade]

"The only reason I appeal is if I think the batsman's nicked it," Sangakkara said after the match. "I appeal and wait for a decision."

Thats a lie! he should be the next person after the batsman who can recognize the nick...

[Sachinism]

cant blame him for being upset though

[IndianRenegade]

I think there is basically something wrong with all the dissent stuff. All he did was shake his head in disappointment while he stood there a little longer than he should have in case he was out, but isn't that normal when you clearly know that you are not out? What is the ICC trying to do? Make the game emotionless? Why not let a group of 22 robots programmed to show no dissent play the game. One can understand that if a reaction is too strong or something of that sort, but it wasn't so. ICC must have a look into whether the batsmen was really out when he shows signs of dissent, and also whether his show of disappointment was not over the top before give out fines.

[siddhu]

Heres a conspiracy theory....could bhajji getting off the leash played a part in getting Rohit Sharma fined?? IMO ICC referees just wants to show who is the boss... and thus fine the first Indian to show a little "dissent". I remember Michael Clarke after edging to slips was staring at the umpire in the much maligned Sydney Test and was still not fined.

[Guest dada_rocks]

BS

[beetle]

What did Jeff Crowe expect the poor guy to do...touch the umpires feet? Stupid decision...bachche ko tung kar rahe hai!

[coffee_rules]

the scorecard should have read: RG Sharma k +Sangakarra c Murali 0 (k for koertzened, c for chucked) or RG Sharma sbu out 0 (sbu for screwed by umpire)

[zub2006]

did he show any dissent

[fineleg]

did he show any dissent

he stood there for a few seconds longer in shock - thatz 'dizzent' as per icc

[yoda]

if replays show that the player wasn't actually out, they should making the erring umpire pay the fine.

[fineleg]

if replays show that the player wasn't actually out' date=' they should making the erring umpire pay the fine.[/quote'] :two_thumbs_up:

[DesiChap]

if replays show that the player wasn't actually out' date=' they should making the erring umpire pay the fine.[/quote'] But the UMP is only adding to the games charm. Ever heard of human element :D

[talksport]

the scorecard should have read: RG Sharma k +Sangakarra c Murali 0 (k for koertzened, c for chucked) or RG Sharma sbu out 0 (sbu for screwed by umpire)

:haha::haha::haha:

[Ram]

I suppose one thing all of us have to keep in mind here is, the Match Refress must always err on the side of being harsh, they simply cannot condone dissent/disappointment even in a remote way. With this case, Rohit is a 20 year old trying to establish his place in the team. He would have wanting to deliver in this match desperately and hence would have been terribly disappointed when he was given out wrongly. You could excuse him for the way he reacted considering the circumstances, but the match refrees know that if they start being a bit lenient, it could lead to further complications in the future. All these strict rules is like a firewall around the umpire, to protect him from looking stupid on the field. But it seems as though, off late, the umpires are desperate to look stupid, judging by some of the decisions they have given. I am STILL not able to fathom how Bucknor gave Symonds not out off Ishant. As Mark Taylor aptly commented " Steve Bucknor is probably the only person in the ground who thinks thats not out"

[fineleg]

All these strict rules is like a firewall around the umpire, to protect him from looking stupid on the field. But it seems as though, off late, the umpires are desperate to look stupid, judging by some of the decisions they have given. "

Remove all those firewalls, I say (where is that guy in icf who uses this "I say" or "what say" or something?) Let those umpires be exposed for what they are - Incompetent. or biased as the case maybe with B'nor

[Sachinism]

if replays show that the player wasn't actually out' date=' they should making the erring umpire pay the fine.[/quote'] or just dont fine the player if he was wrongly given out

[Ram]

Remove all those firewalls, I say (where is that guy in icf who uses this "I say" or "what say" or something?) Let those umpires be exposed for what they are - Incompetent. or biased as the case maybe with B'nor

Honestly, Dont you realize its humanly IMPOSSIBLE to have an umpire who does not make mistakes. No no no, I am trying to spark a debate on how relevant or irrelevant an umpire is, but to say " Lets expose him and make him look stupid" is a bit over the top. Why do you want to have someone just so that you can embarrass him and make him look stupid ? P.S - That guy was "DaRealPathan". His punch phrase was " Say what " :D

[fineleg]

Honestly, Dont you realize its humanly IMPOSSIBLE to have an umpire who does not make mistakes. No no no, I am trying to spark a debate on how relevant or irrelevant an umpire is, but to say " Lets expose him and make him look stupid" is a bit over the top. Why do you want to have someone just so that you can embarrass him and make him look stupid ? P.S - That guy was "DaRealPathan". His punch phrase was " Say what " :D

MM, I'm not saying give license to the player to show dissent by abusing umpire etc. If such things happen, punish the player. But the guy is shocked, and cant believe the decision, and wants to stay at the crease for a few seconds longer. Big deal. Whatz the issue for ICC with that? Are umpires babies now? They will melt under the stare of a player who feels he has been hard done?