India have complained to ICC on an incident involving Jadeja and Anderson in the 1st Test

[Sachin=GOD]

Jadeja's appeal against the 50% fine was successful.

Didn't come in the news - at least I didn't see it.

[Crookbond]

Didn't come in the news - at least I didn't see it.

Anderson and Jadeja not guilty of breaching code of conduct http://www.firstpost.com/sports/anderson-jadeja-guilty-breaching-code-conduct-1645589.html Both found, not guilty. Jadeja hearing was for his appeal AFAIK.

[adi B]

compromise i am afraid...

Even I think There was a compromise between both the bcci and ECB officials present there. Need to know dhoni's take on this,Will India threaten to boycott the series? Will there be a kejriwal type dharna performed by Philips on the streets of soton?

[yoda]

it was such a silly incident wonder why the indian team made a big deal out if it.

[Crookbond]

Even I think There was a compromise between both the bcci and ECB officials present there. Need to know dhoni's take on this,Will India threaten to boycott the series? Will there be a kejriwal type dharna performed by Philips on the streets of soton?

:WTF: Neither the BCCI nor the ECB nor the ICC decides the matter. It was a judicial hearing which went on for 6-hours.

[Sachin=GOD]

Anderson and Jadeja not guilty of breaching code of conduct http://www.firstpost.com/sports/anderson-jadeja-guilty-breaching-code-conduct-1645589.html Both found, not guilty. Jadeja hearing was for his appeal AFAIK.

Ok.

[Crookbond]

it was such a silly incident wonder why the indian team made a big deal out if it.

Lets say the incident happened. Anderson pushed Jadeja and he fell down in the members area. This isn't even remotely "silly".

[adi B]

:WTF: Neither the BCCI nor the ECB nor the ICC decides the matter. It was a judicial hearing which went on for 6-hours.

I saw on times now,they said officials from both boards were present

[gattaca]

:WTF: Neither the BCCI nor the ECB nor the ICC decides the matter. It was a judicial hearing which went on for 6-hours.

But western courts do allow for comprise between two parties.

[Crookbond]

I saw on times now' date='they said officials from both boards were present[/quote'] So? A 6-hour judicial hearing where the officials are trying to make a "compromise" for 50% Jadeja fine over Anderson's alleged push to Jadeja which btw India has been pursuing to no ends. Complete kaanspiracy theory! The best explanation has already been given. In a court of law, you need to have documented evidence. In this case, it was circumstantial leading to one word against another. The "compromise" is a far stretch of imagination.

[Crookbond]

But western courts do allow for comprise between two parties.

It is allowed in India too called as "out of court settlement". If there is one, the judicial commissioner will specifically mention that both parties have agreed to drop charges and reached a settlement.

[Lord]

So? A 6-hour judicial hearing where the officials are trying to make a "compromise" for 50% Jadeja fine over Anderson's alleged push to Jadeja which btw India has been pursuing to no ends. Complete kaanspiracy theory! The best explanation has already been given. In a court of law, you need to have documented evidence. In this case, it was circumstantial leading to one word against another. The "compromise" is a far stretch of imagination.

I thought the video was found :hmmm:

[Lord]

Yes. Jadeja's appeal against the 50% fine was successful.

Wasn't Jadeja's fine un-appealable as it was Level 1 offense?

[Number]

So that means Indians can be pushed around and they will have to give away 50% fee when they complain.

[BlueBee]

I thought the video was found :hmmm:

ECB concealed the video.

[adi B]

So? A 6-hour judicial hearing where the officials are trying to make a "compromise" for 50% Jadeja fine over Anderson's alleged push to Jadeja which btw India has been pursuing to no ends. Complete kaanspiracy theory! The best explanation has already been given. In a court of law, you need to have documented evidence. In this case, it was circumstantial leading to one word against another. The "compromise" is a far stretch of imagination.

What I meant by compromise was that the bcci officials had to settle with the verdict due to lack of video evidences hence a formal compromise that they won't lodge a protest against the 'loss of video evidence' theory

[Crookbond]

I thought the video was found :hmmm:

Just a news in the Indian Express report.

Wasn't Jadeja's fine un-appealable as it was Level 1 offense?

According to the rules YES but sport rules don't mean much in a court of law. It would be easier for ICC to accept the appeal rather than fight the financial muscle of BCCI in a court.

What I meant by compromise was that the bcci officials had to settle with the verdict due to lack of video evidences hence a formal compromise that they won't lodge a protest against the 'loss of video evidence' theory

India can't lodge any formal protest that the video was not available.

[Sachin=GOD]

ESPNcricinfo ‏@ESPNcricinfo Breaking: BCCI has requested ICC chief Dave Richardson to appeal Jimmy Anderson's not-guilty verdict.

[King Tendulkar]

Don Srini... :hehe: The Madrasi thug can only bully Indians... Abroad, his performance is as pathetic as his foster son's.... :giggle:

:giggle:

[YCCC]

Sorry to bring this sorry incident up again, but I just thought I'd share with you news of more double standards from the ECB. It has ruined for me what was otherwise a wonderful day http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/29052775 So it's fine for Mr Anderson to use foul and abusive language in a Test match (and I don't think Gale can have said anything worse than calling someone a f***** C***) but not for Gale in a county match. Not saying either was right and Gale must surely regret it now and be feeling rather annoyed with himself, especially as Yorkshire captain, but seems like it's one rule for senior England players and another for your run of the mill county pros