Ganguly's appeal rejected

[deeps]

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat.../2005/APR/234638_INDPAK2004-05_18APR2005.html

 

[age_master]

should have got 6 more matches, was his fault that there was misunderstanding.

 

[Pratters]

should have got 6 more matches, was his fault that there was misunderstanding.

Yeah.

 

[Scallywag]

Looks like the selectors have rejected him too.

 

[Deja moo]

should have got 6 more matches, was his fault that there was misunderstanding.

Thats frankly a naive and IMO vindictive view.

When a person is held in custody during a hearing, and is sentenced to any period of time in prison, the time he spent in custody before the verdict is included as part of the final sentencing too.

 

[SJS]

should have got 6 more matches, was his fault that there was misunderstanding.

NO. It wasnt his fault.

He was willing to play if selected.

The selectors did not wait for the ICC's written decision and decided to implememnt the ban on their own. So ICC was correct in counting these two games a having been missed on account of the ban.

 

[Pratters]

ICC clearly said he was elligible to play.

The selectors decided to NOT include him after the side was announced. In the words of Te Telegraph's Lokendra Pratap Sahi, he was DITCHED by the selectors.

Now the ICC has clearly said the ban period has not been changed. So I would imagine the correct verdict would have been to ban him from the next six matches.

 

[deeps]

the selectors said he was clear to play....so then it shouldn't be counted as part of the ban

but it was due to the suspension that he missed the games, so that is probably why they let it slip.

 

[SJS]

ICC clearly said he was elligible to play.

The selectors decided to NOT include him after the side was announced. In the words of Te Telegraph's Lokendra Pratap Sahi, he was DITCHED by the selectors.

Now the ICC has clearly said the ban period has not been changed. So I would imagine the correct verdict would have been to ban him from the next six matches.

Well there is a politics behind it which one can only make conjectures about. But the official position is this.

1. According to BCCI, they were verbally informed by Broad that Ganguly had been banned for six games.
2. The BCCI secretary went on air and told a news conference (I heard and saw it myself) that beased on the verbal communication by the match refree BCCI had decided not to incl;ude Ganguly in the side 14 for the last two games.
3. Ganguly rushed to dalmiya, sat with him and got him and his lawyers to make out an appeal which was submitted the same day and got ICC to confirm that pending the appeal Ganguly could play.
4. The board now took the stand that having selected the 14 and informed the two new comers chosen in place og Ganguly and Irfan, they were going to stick to the same 14.

This is the correct sequence of events.

So while it is possible that ganguly has been finally prevented from playing by Mr Mahendra (an old enemy) and company, the pretext used is the Match Refree's verbal communication

AND ICC's confirmation that Ganguly could play pending the ban came AFTYER BCCI had made its move.

So Ganguly is NOT responsible for not playing inspite of being allowed, whosoever maybe

 

[marc71178]

should have got 6 more matches, was his fault that there was misunderstanding.

He could have only had 2 games added to the punishment though, because 8 is the maximum for that offence.

 

[Sanz]

Ganguly finally got the punishment he deserved. As a captain it was his responsibility to complete the overs on time. And I hope ICC is consistent in handing out punishments.

To the person who said that Ganguly should have been for 6 more games because it was his fault, you couldn't be more biasd in your opinion.

 

[Pratters]

Ganguly finally got the punishment he deserved. As a captain it was his responsibility to complete the overs on time. And I hope ICC is consistent in handing out punishments.

To the person who said that Ganguly should have been for 6 more games because it was his fault, you couldn't be more biasd in your opinion.

He didnt mean 6 MORE games apart from the 6 already.

He meant after the punishment was decided he should miss 6 games. Now Ganguly gets to miss the next 4 instead of six games.

 

[Robertinho]

Ganguly has thus been ruled out of the first four matches of the triangular one-day tournament in Sri Lanka in August

That'll be a blow to Sri Lanka's hopes..

 

[Sanz]

He didnt mean 6 MORE games apart from the 6 already.

I know what he meant.

 

[Sanz]

That'll be a blow to Sri Lanka's hopes..

Yeah Right !!, Indian team was doing so much better without him. :-)

 

[Pratters]

I know what he meant.

Then its wrong for you to term him and implicating me of bias in this regard.

 

[Sanz]

Then its wrong for you to term him and implicating me of bias in this regard.

I dont think I am wrong in calling him or you biased because he followed his statement with " was his fault that there was misunderstanding" and you supported him.

I am no fan of Ganguly and clearly support this ban but to say that it was Ganguly's fault that a misunderstanding was created reeks of some prejudice or may be you two have some insider information which others on this forum dont.

 

[Pratters]

I dont think I am wrong in calling him or you biased because he followed his statement with " was his fault that there was misunderstanding" and you supported him.

I am no fan of Ganguly and clearly support this ban but to say that it was Ganguly's fault that a misunderstanding was created reeks of some prejudice or may be you two have some insider information which others on this forum dont.

It was Ganguly's fault that there were slow over rates.

The ICC reduced the ban to 4 technically as Ganguly was elligible to play in the last two one dayers and was not banned for it.

There is no bias shown.

 

[Sanz]

It was Ganguly's fault that there were slow over rates.

The ICC reduced the ban to 4 technically as Ganguly was elligible to play in the last two one dayers and was not banned for it.

There is no bias shown.

Dude, it is the second part of the statement (which I quoted) you supported, points the biasness. Whether Ganguly is banned for 4 games or 6 games really depended on how ICC interpreted his non-selection in the last two games of Ind-pak series.
ICC didn't reduce the ban, It's just that their interpretetion of the events is slightly different from what you wanted, check the link and read it.

btw, nowhere I have said that it was not Ganguly's fault. So dont repeat it unnecessarily to force your point.

 

[Pratters]

Dude, it is the second part of the statement (which I quoted) you supported, points the biasness. Whether Ganguly is banned for 4 games or 6 games really depended on how ICC interpreted his non-selection in the last two games of Ind-pak series.
ICC didn't reduce the ban, It's just that their interpretetion of the events is slightly different from what you wanted, check the link and read it.

btw, nowhere I have said that it was not Ganguly's fault. So dont repeat it unnecessarily to force your point.

It isnt forcing if you already think it was his fault and deserved to get banned.

And yes it wasnt his fault that he couldnt play the 5th and 6th one dayers. Technically he was dropped for them and now the ICC has included those in the banned matches.