Lloyd critical of 'rude' Vaughan

[Zainub]

I'm surprised that Lloyd has made these comments, he doesn't usually seem that type of person, seems more of a calm and reserved type. In any case, I'm disapointed with his statments, I still maintain he was right to fine Vaughan (b/c that is what he should have done a/c to the rules), and he is also withing his right to think Vaughan was rude (a/c to law of nature), but he definately has no reason to come out and say that in public (b/c that is againt the ICC's code of conduct).

I'm glad Alison has pointed that out already, because if she hadn't I would have certainly, I knew that from readin the icc's conduct a few days ago, it has a seprate code of conduct for umpires and referres, and niether are pirmitted to make such statements about what happened during the coarse of the game off the field.

You would have expected Llyod, being one of the most experienced referres going around to know these rules. after all, if Alison knows them, I know them, a lot of other fans that have read the CoC online on ICC's webite know them, Llyod should definately know them too.

I hope this is taken notice of by the ICC, and that Llyod is, if nothing, at least reprimanded and cautioned from doing this again. I'm sure this must have gone down very badly with Vaughan, you wouldn't suspect him would be a happy man reading these remarks about him in the papaers, I can only wonder if he will ever respect Llyod in the same way as before after all this.

[Alison]

Well, I copied it directly from the ICC Code of Conduct, I just wasn't sure whether publicly criticising players in the media would count under the rule, I think it should, but I'm not sure whether it does or not.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Alison

Well, I copied it directly from the ICC Code of Conduct, I just wasn't sure whether publicly criticising players in the media would count under the rule, I think it should, but I'm not sure whether it does or not.

Alison,

Your quote was from pg 10 on ICC's Code of Conduct for Players and Officials, point 4, section D, which is especially and specifically meant for referres.

"The referre must not make any detrimental written or spoken comment in the media/press about any Tour, Test Match or ODI Match in which he is involved"

From my understanding of English Language, and it comprehension, common sence and logic, Clive Llyod, with these statements, has clearly broken the code of conduct on the above count, these coments can definately be termed as "detrimental" , detrimental to Vaughan's reputation, and to some extent his as well. There are no grey areas here in my opinion, he has quite clearly broken a "law" , jus like did Vaughan, and if Vaughan was fined, as he should have been, there is no reason for him to be not fined, or at least as I said before, reprimanded, and cautioned from doing it again.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Alison

Well, I copied it directly from the ICC Code of Conduct, I just wasn't sure whether publicly criticising players in the media would count under the rule, I think it should, but I'm not sure whether it does or not.

I am sure you interpited the law right Alison, the quote you gave seemed clear to me.

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi 36348

I'm surprised that Lloyd has made these comments, he doesn't usually seem that type of person, seems more of a calm and reserved type. In any case, I'm disapointed with his statments.

He is not that kind of person Zainub, it would seem that he was in the wrong in this instance, but his job has been thankless having his rulings overturned, I doubt he cares any more.

I speak as I find, and he was Lancashire captain for years, and he was a gentleman, never questioned an umpires decsission, always cool, and above all I would say he had a sence of fair play.
You are disapointed with his statments because they were just not typical Clive Lloyd.

To me so many umpires are not needed aw well as a match referee, a long chain of command.

If Vaughan is setting his stall out as a tough captain, well good for him, because his comments started all this.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Ernest

He is not that kind of person Zainub, it would seem that he was in the wrong in this instance, but his job has been thankless having his rulings overturned, I doubt he cares any more. I speak as I find, and he was Lancashire captain for years, and he was a gentleman, never questioned an umpires decsission, always cool, and above all I would say he had a sence of fair play. You are disapointed with his statments because they were just not typical Clive Lloyd. To me so many umpires are not needed aw well as a match referee, a long chain of command. If Vaughan is setting his stall out as a tough captain, well good for him, because his comments started all this.

You are right Erne, as you are so many times I am actually disapointed because I always use to think he was the best referre going around now-a-days, and I certainly didn't expect him to be not aware of all the rules him self. I don't disagree with you on the front of him being a fair minded, level headed, cool person, I don't doubt him being a fine gentlemen in his playing days, shame I never saw him play, I'm sure he must have been a whole lot more civilised and well mannered then some of the present crop who tend to think swearing is just fine. He probably just wasn't aware of the fact that he wasn't/isn't allowed to say these things in public, which is, the only thing that surprises me, given the repo I had of him in my mind.

But you have to think, Vaughan must have said something serious for a guy like Llyod who has a reputation of being calm and cool to have said something as serious as calling his behaviour rude, must have been something serious.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Ralph dellor,cricinfo

With that experience behind him, he resumed his duties as an ICC Match Referee - a position he occupies with great presence and no little humour to earn the respect and confidence of the players. They know he understands the game as well as anyone and that he holds the good of the game in the highest regard at all times.

Oh course the man is human, and can make mistakes just like we all can, but the above says it all, he has humour as he did when he played, and he was larger than life, when he walked to the crease, it might have been Freddie Flintoff.

[Zainub]

Alison was replying to a post from Argy Bargy, that post has already been deleted.

[Pete]

Heya

Thanks, I wasn't here for that post. I just saw that Alison's post said it was replied to mine and got abit confused

[Occasional Fan]

I think there are some serious issues here for the credibility of cricket's disciplinary processes. As I have said elsewhere, I do believe it is appropriate for cricket to handle its own disciplinary arrangements (and the same for other professions: I said somewhere else that, as a chartered accountant, I believe my professional conduct should be primarily regulated by my own professional body). However, the processes which are adopted by the professions in question and the conduct of the people who are charged with their operation must be beyond reproach. Clive Lloyd, owing to the curious arrangements of the ICC's disciplinary code, acted in Vaughan's case as counsel for the prosecution (in that it was Lloyd himself who hauled Vaughan into a hearing following Vaughan's remarks on umpiring consistency), jury (he found that Vaughan had committed an offence) and judge (he passed the sentence). There are enough lawyers out there who would suggest that Lloyd has quite enough power on his side given that he occupies these three roles already, and, notwithstanding my view that the ICC is the right body to administer discipline in the field of international cricket and the civil courts generally are not, I would have to concede some sympathy with the lawyers in this respect. For Lloyd now to make public remarks about the man he has charged, found guilty and sentenced really is beyond the pale. And for him to have done it when an appeal is outstanding is utterly inexcusable.

I believe, based on what I read at the time, that Vaughan was guilty of an offence and that a punishment was required for his comments. Whether 100% of the match fee was excessive or not is something which we could discuss until the cows come home, but it makes no difference to the point I am trying to make here. If this were being handled through the courts and Mr Justice Lloyd had made comments as he has, the Court of Appeal would immediately quash Vaughan's conviction on the grounds either that the Learned Judge had allowed a personal opinion of the conduct of the accused in court to influence his judgment or that the Learned Judge, in his comments out of court, was prejudicing the fairness of the appeal. Not only that, but the Lord Chancellor would carpet the Learned Judge for his ill-considered remarks.

I like Clive Lloyd. But he should be carpeted for this.

[Occasional Fan]

Report here from The Independent on Sunday, including comments from the PCA condemning Lloyd's conduct at a delicate time in proceedings.