Jump to content

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

saneindian

By saneindian
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

adi B Grand Master

adi B

Posted
Posted
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?
Crookbond Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
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.
Crookbond Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
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 Grand Master

adi B

Posted
Posted
: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 Grand Master

gattaca

Posted
Posted
: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 Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
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 Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
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 Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
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 Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
Yes. Jadeja's appeal against the 50% fine was successful.
Wasn't Jadeja's fine un-appealable as it was Level 1 offense?
adi B Grand Master

adi B

Posted
Posted
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 Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
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.
YCCC Rookie

YCCC

Posted
Posted

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...