Indian opener Gautam Gambhir has been banned for one Test by the International Cricket Council (ICC) for elbowing Shane Watson in the ribs during the 3rd Test between India and Australia in Delhi. However, thanks to some quick moves made by the BCCI, the left-hander could be free to play the 4th and final Test vs the Aussies in Nagpur next week.Within minutes of issuing a media release detailing the decision made by Match Referee Chris Broad, the ICC received an appeal from the BCCI against Gambhir's one-Test ban.
World cricket's governing body will now appoint a Code of Conduct Commissioner to hear the appeal within next 48 hours. The appeal would then be heard within seven days of Commissioner's appointment. Pending commissioner's decision, Gambhir will be eligible to continue playing the rest of the series.
Here's what the ICC Match Referee, the BCCI and Mr Sunil Gavaskar had to say about the entire episode:
ICC Elite Panel Match Referee Chris Broad:
“The decision to find Gambhir guilty of a level 2 offence is indicative of the fact that any degree of physical con
tact is unacceptable.
“Had Gambhir been charged with and found guilty of a charge under 2.4, due to his previous offence, I would have been obliged to impose a minimum penalty of a two-Test match ban. In the view of the umpires, the facts of this case - the lightness of the physical conduct and the element of provocation - would not justify such a penalty.“The umpires accordingly had regard to the notes of the ICC Code of Conduct which provides for a player to be charged under Rule C1 if the circumstances of the alleged incident are not adequately covered by the listed offences. “Whilst I concur with this view, the ICC has repeatedly told the players that deliberate physical contact between players will not be tolerated. I have also taken into account the previous offences of Gambhir and therefore, I am satisfied that the penalty imposed is an appropriate out
come in the circumstances of this matter. I hope Mr Gambhir will learn from this.”
“The decision to find Gambhir guilty of a level 2 offence is indicative of the fact that any degree of physical con
tact is unacceptable.“Had Gambhir been charged with and found guilty of a charge under 2.4, due to his previous offence, I would have been obliged to impose a minimum penalty of a two-Test match ban. In the view of the umpires, the facts of this case - the lightness of the physical conduct and the element of provocation - would not justify such a penalty.“The umpires accordingly had regard to the notes of the ICC Code of Conduct which provides for a player to be charged under Rule C1 if the circumstances of the alleged incident are not adequately covered by the listed offences. “Whilst I concur with this view, the ICC has repeatedly told the players that deliberate physical contact between players will not be tolerated. I have also taken into account the previous offences of Gambhir and therefore, I am satisfied that the penalty imposed is an appropriate out
come in the circumstances of this matter. I hope Mr Gambhir will learn from this.”BCCI Secretary N Srinivasan:
"For Level 2 offences, the concerned players have the right to appeal against the adjudicator's decision within 24 hours of notification of the decision. Accordingly, Mr. Gambhir will be lodging an appeal."
Sunil Gavaskar, Former Indian Opener:
"This kind of an behaviour is not on as far as the game of cricket is concerned. We really shouldn't be having people barging into each other. I just feel that maybe it is a little too harsh (on Gambhir) because if you see the provocation -- the man who provoked (Watson) got just a 10 per cent penalty. Now, you have got to have a look and see the quantum of punishment given to Gambhir -- Was Gambhir's offence five times worse, or 10 times worse? "If it was 10 times worse then he of course loses 100 per cent of his match fee. But by banning him for a
game (though, he has appealed against the ban), it has changed the whole balance of the series. Here is a man who has scored over 400 runs, including two consecutive centuries which also include one double-century. Now to have him out of the Nagpur Test certainly will make India a weak team. So, I think a very stiff fine, for example a 100 per cent fine would probably be more in order."
game (though, he has appealed against the ban), it has changed the whole balance of the series. Here is a man who has scored over 400 runs, including two consecutive centuries which also include one double-century. Now to have him out of the Nagpur Test certainly will make India a weak team. So, I think a very stiff fine, for example a 100 per cent fine would probably be more in order." 
No comments:
Post a Comment