Ganguly's ban overturned on appeal

[Occasional Fan]

Cheating is a nasty pejorative word, so let's avoid it. Ganguly was bending the rules, though, and I can certainly see that advantages are possibly going to be unfairly gained from this - one example would be that his bowlers had 33% more rest time between balls than was provided for by the rules. I am fairly content that he bent the rules to breaking point on this occasion, and remember he was on a second offence in a twelve-month.

In my view, Clive Lloyd was right to throw the book at him. Lloyd didn't just pick a penalty out of the air: he took it from the ICC Players' Code of Conduct, which Ganguly presumably has either read or had read to him. I don't understand what message the Appeals Committee is trying to send in overturning the ban - is it saying that the Code of Conduct is a load of hogwash or that Lloyd applied it incorrectly? Either way, if I were Ganguly (or any other international skipper), I would basically no longer give a toss about any time restrictions which the regulations for ODIs might contain, as it seems to be the case that you can do what the heck you like and the referees are powerless to enforce the regulations.

[Maranello]

Point taken, and I agree that those who repeatedly bend/break the rules need to be dealt with appropriately, otherwise the rule might as well not be there, and so I do not support the overturning of the ban. However, I have some reservations about the rule in the first place, or how it was applied in this one instance.

Firstly, I am not so sure what the point of the over-rates rule in ODIs is, apart from keeping to TV schedules. I understand the minimum overs requirement in Tests, and totally support it being enforced strongly; Teams often like to delay (both whilst batting and bowling) in Tests if things are not going for them, so enforcing minimum over-rates is imperative. The most vivid example of this behaviour by captains was Pakistan v England at Karachi in 2001, when Moin Khan shamefully delayed proceedings well into twilight, in the hope of avoiding a rare home defeat, but in the end, the captain with the more positive (honest?) approach (ie Hussain) won the day... in fading hours of light... and much to my consternation and sadness, but that's a different story :-)

In ODIs, each team has to bowl 50 overs, regardless of time, so I don't think over-rates matter. In this match, I was supporting Pakistan and the first whiff of "gamesmanship" by India would have had me in a frenxy; however, I was entirely unperturbed by the slow over-rates. In fact, it was good because it allowed our batsmen time to regroup, catch their breath etc, conditions were very hot and humid out there. The other advantage to Pak was that delaying the overs meant that more and more of ours innings would be in conditions when bowling was difficult, due to the dew factor.

I was concerned when the PPV broadcaster in the UK cut off their TV feed with around 5 overs to go (the match had over-run by around 65 minutes then), but it was soon back on. Hence the only implication of over-rates in ODIs for me is for TV schedules. The match finished just past midnight local time in Calcutta, which I agree is an ungodly hour for playing cricket, even on a weekend. But we won! Had we lost, I might have been much more critical of Ganguly's over-rates, but I doubt it.

PS: Not many people would hesitate in using negative or pejorative terms to describe Mr. Ganguly, but I agree, he is an international cricket captain and a human being who deserves respect. Apologies for using the term.

[Occasional Fan]

I'm not quite sure why there are time limits for limited over cricket either - but it certainly isn't only TV driven, even though that may now be a major concern. As long as I can remember there have been time limits on one-day domestic competitions, and at the time I am thinking of (must be 20 years since I was at the old County Ground in Southampton for a Sunday league game) there was little TV coverage to worry about (the BBC would only ever cover one game from the schedule on a Sunday afternoon). It also used to be the case - and not so long ago - that if the side bowling first didn't get through its overs by the time limit, the innings was closed and the available overs for the reply were correspondingly reduced. I'm not sure when that changed at ODI level - but I imagine it happened because of a perceived (and probably real) advantage which could be obtained by slow bowling in the first innings, as well as to protect the interests of the paying public.

In any case, whatever the reason is for having the rule, the fact is that it is there and everyone should play by it or face a realistic penalty. I'm still confused by the ICC Appeals Committee's position on this.

[Statto]

I dont see how he even has grounds for appeal on this, players can be fined etc for only a short overrun in the innings but 74 minutes is ridiculous - thats a 2020 innings as it is. I am in favour of the penalties which exist in the National league over here, that is a 6 run penalty for every over not started by a given time. I saw this happen once at Lancs when they needed 8 to win off 7 balls with 2 wickets left at the time the last over should have been started. Lancs got 6 runs and won a game they would have lost. This must ensure teams hurry up, although it was unfortunate as the opposition skipper was doing his best in this case, which Ganguly clearly wasnt. I would be quite happy to see this in international cricket just to stop this. I can see the obvious argument that it spoils the spectacle but my defence would be so does the pointless time wasting that is going on to diadvantage the batsmen. I would also have liked some consistency from the ICC (unrealistic but someday it has to happen) after they 'came down hard' on the WI for their shocking over rate in the test series but again India does as India pleases.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Statto

so does the pointless time wasting that is going on to diadvantage the batsmen.

How was it disadvantageous to Inzamam, Butt or any other Pakistani batsman in this case? Those guys were all seriously tired, the delays helped them regroup, get some drinks and get some instructions from the pavilion. Also, the more they delayed, the more the conditions became favourable for batting and almost impossible for bowling swing or spin due to the dew.

[Zainub]

I agree here, I don't think Ganguly deliberately tried to slow down the game to gain an unfair advantage, but he did technically break a rule, and should have got that ban, especially since it was the second time in 6 months he was reported. 2 matches sounds harsh, it's only sounding harsh, other wise it is in theory perfectly justifiable.

I have to think about Llyod here, was the comission trying to question in any way his credibility? Ganguly was liable for punishment and by over turning such a respected referees take on this the comission basically sends out a very unclear picture of what the ICC's stance on this is, OF is right, it's confusing. Contradictory actually.

[Statto]

I cant find the scorecard to remind myself of the actual match so I'll have to be very general. When the pressure builds up / batsmen get in a rhythm, often the best way to get to them is by time wasting. Clearly in this case it didnt work but wasting time for reasons of letting it go dark, allowing cloud to come over the stadium etc to make it harder for the batsmen is basically cheating. Also, long, unnecessary pauses can disrupt a batsmans rhythm while they wait for the next ball/over with nothing to do for several minutes at a time. I dont just put this down to bowlers / captains, batsmen can make an under pressure bowler wait between balls and admittedly this does go unpunished in most occasions. Certainly in most cases time wasting is off putting to the other team (batsmen or bowlers) but my main point that Ganguly should not have won his appeal was that he is breaking the ICCs rules and by a considerable margin. He is the captain and so he is responsible by the rules of the game.

[vvvrulz]

It's just going to show what dominance the Indians have over the ICC, technically I beleive, they should never have attended the World Cup because of contract issues. Plus they uplifted several bans dished out for a match in South Africa for 'excessive appealing'. Strange call yes, but does India really have the right to overturn rules at will?

[Zainub]

I'm not too comfortable either with the excessive amount of influence India seemingly have over ICC, and I know that sentiment is shared by a lot of other people around the world. Money rules I guess. The day another board can boast of being the richest in the buisness the ICC will change sides towards it.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

I'm not too comfortable either with the excessive amount of influence India seemingly have over ICC

How does this work? I keep reading suggestions that India (or sometimes the sub-continent as a whole) has undue influence in the ICC, but is it really the case? Or is it simply that some decisions seem to have gone their way recently?