Inzi Cleared of ball tampering

[Rachael]

In the UK and AUS the big deal would be questioning the umpire: it's OK in the UK to break rules (or, as Blair said this week, to make mistakes) but what is neither forgotten nor forgiven is failing to set an example in the field: what Inzi did is basically regarded as petulance, a betrayal of the game that let down the punters at the game, the viewersat home and everyone hoping that their sporting superstars would act as role models on the field, accepting the umpire's decision as final even when it might be wrong.

It's OK in most UK sport to push the fine line between acceptability and unacceptability: Rugby eventally changed the laws on line outs because lifting players up and holding them in the air was so common... and the error of getting caught in any UK sport is often greeted by a wry smile rather than with anger - as if it's OK to try and get away with stuff so long as you take the rap if you are caught.

The rules as they stand appear to suit the UK outlook. In county cricket the five run penalty would be entirely in keeping with the notion that very little seperates working the ball legally from affecting the ball illegally... and few would expect the matter to warrant more than a mild reprimant that is soon forgotten. By contrast, in county cricket the disrepute charge might lead to a player being heavily fined or even dismissed by his club: players found guilty of taking illegal recreational drugs, for instance, have been treated pretty severely.

At least this incident highlights just how far from universal certain British outlooks might be!

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Rachael

what Inzi did is basically regarded as petulance, a betrayal of the game that let down the punters at the game, the viewers at home and everyone hoping that their sporting superstars would act as role models on the field, accepting the umpire's decision as final even when it might be wrong.

Apparently nobody has told Inzi that, if you go on his his long disciplinary record. This was the 11th time in his career that Inzamam has been punished under the ICC code of conduct.

September 14, 1997 v India, Toronto: Suspended for two one-day internationals by match referee Jackie Hendriks after he tried to beat a spectator who had verbally abused him.

April 23, 1998 v South Africa at Newlands: Dissent at umpire's decision. Fined 50% of match fee, with a suspended ban of one limited overs match, by referee John Reid.

March 12-16, 2000 v Sri Lanka, Karachi: Receives severe reprimand for criticising the attitude of the Sri Lankan players from referee Brian Hastings.

May 25-29, 2000 v West Indies, Antigua: Fined 50% of match fee by referee Peter Burge for dissent over umpiring decision.

June 23, 2001 v England, Lord's: Fined 50% of match fee and suspended for two matches for showing dissent at umpire's decision, by referee Hastings.

March 16, 2004 v India, Rawalpindi. Fined 50% of match fee for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game, by referee Ranjan Madugalle.

February 1, 2005 v West Indies, Perth: Fined 100% of his match fee for failing to control his players as captain, by referee Chris Broad.

March 24-28, 2005 v India, Bangalore: Fined 30% of match fee for showing dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse. Broad was the referee.

March 24-28, 2005 v India, Bangalore: Banned for one Test for charging or advancing towards the umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing, by Broad.

April 5, 2005 v India, Visakhapatnam: Reprimanded by Broad for abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings.

August 17-20, 2006 v Eng, the Oval: Four-match one-day international ban for bringing game into disrepute. Banned at the end of a two-day hearing on September 28 by ICC chief match referee Madugalle.

Looking at that record, Inzi and Pakistan should also ask the ICC not to have Chris Broad officiate any matches involving Pakistan.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Mike

Apparently nobody has told Inzi that, if you go on his his long disciplinary record. This was the 11th time in his career that Inzamam has been punished under the ICC code of conduct.

Yes, the 11th time in his looooong career...but how many as a captain?

If we compare stats, then the one person one ought to have a look at, is Ricky Ponting.

Ponting has been fined for "serious dissent" a couple of times :http://wwwc4.cricinfo.com/dlfcup/con...ry/259522.html

"AUSTRALIA have been warned their ugly bullying of umpires must stop immediately as embarrassed skipper Ricky Ponting door-knocked teammates to apologise for his latest disciplinary blunder."

[Mr Hutt]

Maybe cricket should adopt the yellow and red card system like football.. for players who show serious dissent they should be sent off and the team to be made to field without them i.e with one player short, now that would add a lot more spice to the game i think.

[ll0OoO0ll]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Yes, the 11th time in his looooong career...but how many as a captain?

If we compare stats, then the one person one ought to have a look at, is Ricky Ponting.

Ponting has been fined for "serious dissent" a couple of times :http://wwwc4.cricinfo.com/dlfcup/con...ry/259522.html

"AUSTRALIA have been warned their ugly bullying of umpires must stop immediately as embarrassed skipper Ricky Ponting door-knocked teammates to apologise for his latest disciplinary blunder."

Not only that, but racism laws were introduced to cricket primarly cuz of the attitude of Australian crowds. what a shame that one of Australia's representer is Darrel Hair.

[darksideofthemoon]

It should have been a 4 Test ban for causing the Test to be stopped. Why 4 internationals? Inzi has done nothing wrong in internationals.
Ball tampering - only the ball tamperer should be charged. No ball tamperer - change the ball and get on with the game. Forget penalty runs.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll

Not only that, but racism laws were introduced to cricket primarly cuz of the attitude of Australian crowds.

There are no Laws of Cricket which refer to racism.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

There are no Laws of Cricket which refer to racism.

OF, ll0OoO0ll wasn't referring to the Laws of Cricket.

NEW DELHI, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Racial abuse at cricket matches may result in fans being ejected or banned for life from venues in line with anti-racism laws adopted by the International Cricket Council (ICC).

Below is a quote from the ICC website:

September 25, 2006, The ICC Chief Executives' Committee (CEC) has agreed to adopt and implement an amended Anti-Racism Code following a two-day meeting in Dubai on Sunday and Monday.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Mr Hutt

Maybe cricket should adopt the yellow and red card system like football.. for players who show serious dissent they should be sent off and the team to be made to field without them i.e with one player short, no

Exactly Mr Hutt.

We shoud start from scratch today now that the Hair?Inzi/PCB is over, and bring in such a Red Card system, the team will soon regulate their team mates if they lose because of being one man short.

This applies to all teams, and we may see some respect being brough back into the game of cricket.

[Mike]

I'm not a fan of the red card rule as it has a huge influence on the outcome of matches and spoils the contest for the spectators. Better to ban the player for x matches after the match.