The Anglo-Saxon dominated ICC

[MADDY]

AFAIK, P_R's stance (to support English cricket team) was more in cricketing terms.

yeah, im still a fan of English cricket.....absolutely impressed the way they thrashed Australia and now India(though it is personally painful).......

but yeah, referees are constantly showing favor for white men and against brown men during disciplinary hearings.......and ICC members are constantly having inferiority complex and acquired image of helplessness against the beastly Indian cricket, which is fuelling lot of anti-india sentiments.........the governing body itself isnt balanced and biased, which is not a good sign for the game....

this is the staff list of ICC -- http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc...tion/staff.php
this is the match officials list of ICC -- http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc...s/overview.php
this is the constitution of ICC which explains the organizational structure and role of each position and entities - http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/...0213828_45.pdf

btw, found this -- MCC to act as guardian of the rules and mentor of the spirit of the game.

[Plum]

modhalla Dave Richardson-ai thookaNum. It is not easy. He is a lawyer who will fight back. Chanakyan strategies will have to be employed. Honey Trap should be employed if he has that weakness.

Step by step, the members with anglo-saxon agenda should be removed. Since I believe in eye-for-eye in this particular case, we must infiltrate our most bigoted asians in those roles. So that for atleast a few years, the boot will be on the other foot. When the cycle ends, they'll come back to power and do the same to us - but that is ok, even if we are nice now, they'll humiliate us when they come back to power.

[Cinemarasigan]

modhalla Dave Richardson-ai thookaNum. It is not easy. He is a lawyer who will fight back. Chanakyan strategies will have to be employed. Honey Trap should be employed if he has that weakness.

Step by step, the members with anglo-saxon agenda should be removed. Since I believe in eye-for-eye in this particular case, we must infiltrate our most bigoted asians in those roles. So that for atleast a few years, the boot will be on the other foot. When the cycle ends, they'll come back to power and do the same to us - but that is ok, even if we are nice now, they'll humiliate us when they come back to power.

Neenga thaan-ga 21st century Chanakyan...

[Plum]

Kartikeya Date again - clinical demolition of Flower's hypocrisy
Why Andrew Flower Would Not Have Done What Dhoni Did In The Ian Bell Case



This question has continued to bug me. Why did England think it was right to ask Dhoni to reconsider an appeal which was fairly clearly within the rules? Why did Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss think that it was the right thing to do? Or were they going to do it simply because Bell was batting so well? Sportsmanship involves doing the right thing irrespective of the cost to one's interests, purely because it is the right thing to do. Surely, the sporting thing to do in the case of the Bell episode would have been for India to withdraw their appeal, then, for Bell to be declared retired Out by England for his tea time score. For if Bell admitted being "naive" or "stupid", what price did he pay for it?

Increasingly, Michael Vaughan's reading of the situation seemed to be the most plausible one. Bell and England "handled the situation" brilliantly to protect their own interests. Sportsmanship had nothing to do with it. Flower's nonsense about an "international incident" was only the last step in that performance.



3 years ago, Grant Elliot set off on an iffy run in an ODI against England at the Oval. Due to various factors, such as where the ball went, where Sidebottom's normal follow through ended up, and what line the non-striker was running, Elliot collided with the bowler. England claimed the run out (the fielder was Ian Bell), and Elliot was given Out. As per the law, it was judged by the Umpires that the wicket had been put down fairly. This is not just my interpretation, this is what the law actually says. Law 38 says that the batsman shall be out if "his wicket is fairly put down by the action of a fielder". Paul Collingwood, then England's captain, declined to withdraw his appeal, and the decision stood. Later that day, Collingwood regretted this decision, but explained it away as something that happened in the heat of the moment.

14 months later, England were playing Sri Lanka at the Wanderers in Johannesburg in an ICC Champions Trophy game. This time, the Sri Lankan all-rounder Angelo Mathews collided with the bowler Graham Onions after he had turned for a second run. Unlike the episode at the Oval, where Sidebottom was trying to race to the ball when the collision occurred, in this case, Onions was nowhere near the ball. England claimed the ensuing run out, but Andrew Strauss withdrew his appeal.

In both instances, the collision was an accident. There was no suggestion that either bowler or batsman deliberately tried to get in each others way. As such, it would have been perfectly legitimate for the fielding side to have claimed the run out in both cases, because the wicket was put down "fairly". The fielding side did not cheat, because the bowler did not deliberately get in the batsman's way. Further, it can also be argued that since it is the batsman who is doing to running, he should watch where he is going. Typically, batsmen have a fairly good feel for where the bowler is when they are rushing for a quick run. But sometimes, accidents can happen. However, this is one of those instances in which claiming the dismissal did not "feel right".

Andrew Flower disagreed with Strauss's decision to withdraw the appeal against Angelo Mathews (My thanks to Siddharth Monga of Cricinfo for reminding me of this example). "I would definitely have not recalled him," he said, "But Strauss is a good man and I trust him completely. He made his decision and I back him on that, I just wouldn't have done it myself. I would have sent the batsman on his way. He ran into the bowler. Simple deal."


<LI class="postbitlegacy postbitim postcontainer" id=post_720386>

So Flower's attitude to these things is clear. If the batsman makes a mistake, then he pays the price. Bell admitted that he made a mistake. So why didn't Flower want Bell to pay a price? Does Flower support India's decision to recall Bell? Surely, the whole point of sportsmanship, is that you do the right thing, irrespective of the consequences for your team. If Dhoni's decision was an example of sportsmanship, was Flower and Strauss's decision to ask Bell to resume his innings not unsporting? And it is not as though Flower disagreed with the decision to ask Dhoni to withdraw the appeal.

To be fair though, England have been quite honest about their attitude - an attitude which involves doing whatever marginal thing it takes to win. Strauss stopped short of definitely agreeing with Dhoni's decision. His comment was as non-committal as he could get away with. As opposed the clear comments from Vaughan and Hussein (for example), that they would have appealed exactly as Dhoni did, Strauss hemmed and hawed and came out with "I would like to think so", when asked if he would also have withdrawn the appeal in similar circumstances.

England's role in the Ian Bell episode can only be described as a thoroughly unsporting, professional and sophisticated. They protected their interests single mindedly, the "right thing" be damned. The "Spirit of Cricket" such as it is, is little more than an empty rhetorical trope, just as their standard ultra-conditional mea culpas are empty rhetorical tropes.

So how should India deal with England in the rest of this series? I hope they will stick to playing by their own standards and not sink to England's. I also hope they can match England's accuracy with the ball.

[Plum]

ICC's brazen bias in favour of England on player punishments for misbehaviour

Mishra (Case 6) and Kumar (Case 7) were fined 10% and 20% of their match fees respectively for breaching Article 2.1.3. The Article 2.1.3 includes (pdf):

"(a) excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision; (b) an obvious delay in resuming play or leaving the wicket; (c) shaking the head; (d) pointing or looking at the inside edge when given out lbw; (e) pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when caught behind; (f) snatching the cap from the Umpire; (g) requesting a referral to the TV Umpire (other than in the context of a legitimate request for a referral as may be permitted in such International Match); and (h) arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision. It shall not be a defence to any charge brought under this Article to show that the Umpire might have, or in fact did, get any decision wrong."

Given what Stuart Broad did on Day 5 of the 1st Test of this series at Lord's, I wonder why that was not classified in clauses (a) and (h) of the above-mentioned Article. Sitting on haunches after an appeal is turned down should easily classify as "excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision" and slipping in a word to the umpire at the end of that over / start of next over about that decision should classify as "arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision". Broad might want to argue that it was not an argument or a prolonged discussion, but if he is talking more than the umpire (for his lips seemed to move more than Billy Bowden's), it is "arguing"; and if that discussion continues at the end of the over, it is a "prolonged discussion".

But then he is Stuart Broad, son of Chris, our own James Christopher, innit? How can he be punished?

As per Article 7.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct (pdf), if a Level 1 Offence is committed for the second time within a span of 12 months, then the penalty shall be "the imposition of a fine of between 50-100% of the applicable Match Fee and/or two (2) Suspension Points."

Swann was charged of a Level 1 offence (Case 4) on 12th March 2011. Only 4 months and 18 days have passed since that occasion and Swann has been charged with another Level 1 offence (Case 8). So why was he just reprimanded and not fined 50% of his match fees, which is the minimum penalty to be imposed.

Yet another case of England players getting away. idhellAm sila pErukku kaNNukku theriyAdhu, therinjAlum carpet-ukku keezhE perukittu pOykittE iruppAnga,

And if my aforesaid argument of Broad's behaviour in the 1st Test holds good, then he too should have faced strict sanctions since he has already been pulled up and fined 50% of his match fees for a Level 2 offence on 1st July 2011, merely 29 days ago! Given that the earlier offence was Level 2, I daresay that he should have missed the current Test match at Nottingham!

And if he had missed Nottingham, India would probably have not lost the match. And the so-called depth might have been tested out. They made fun of our batting failure when we lost two of our important batsmen, and in return point that their bowling coped with Tremlett's loss. But that is one bowler. reNdu bowler pOyirundhA therinjirukkum. And there are valid reasons why Broad should not have played at all.

Over rate-lAm samacheer-A apply paNNA, Strauss also would not have played.

idhellAM BCCI power-la irukkarachEvE England pasanga thanga benefit-ku velaiya sAdhichukkurAnga. ivanga vERA off-field powerrukku vandhuttA...

cricket ini mella sAgum

[sathya_1979]

Plum, For your attention: Unsurprisingly no news in crookinfo regarding allegations against Aussies

http://cricketnext.in.com/news/spotf.../60735-13.html

[sathya_1979]

http://www.cricshop.com/Cricket-Leisurewear/England-Supporters-Leisurewear/England-Official-No-1-Test-Team-TShirt.aspx

Were there any such sales when India were No. 1 in Tests for 2-3 years?

[P_R]

tonty pounds!!
thiruppoorla sagAya vilaikku yaaraavadhu senjA vaangalaam.

[Plum]

Sathya, avanga sondha kaasula shirt print paNNaRa varaikkum, this doesn't come under the scope of this thread. Icc kaasula paNNinA then we can protest.Namakku venumna ippo kooda worldcup t shirt paNNi viththukkalAmE? Who is stopping us? We should discuss more weighty transgressions by the anglo saxon folks in this thread

[P_R]

Clean chit to Aussie players