Gavaskar on the Broads

[Sir Alex]

Perceprtion is a big factor, If Dar felt that Broad needed to be reported he would have. But according to the man who was there and knows what Broad jr said believes it was not a reportable offence. What proof do you have to suggest that Dar thought Broad jr went over the top but did nothing be3cause it was Broad sr's son.

Your argument is kind of wierd because it assumes umpires are always forthright. unbiased and not given into external influences which is basically what Gavaskar is doubting. I don't think there is nepotism but given visual proof of the incident (there is no business for him to stay on pitch and remonstrate with the umpire after he was given out, whether the discussion was about his dismissal or the upcoming christmas turkey is irrelevant), he was plainly in the wrong and deserved a booking. We have seen people getting booked for merely "nodding in disapproval" their head after a dismissal (Rohit Sharma). As I said before the cause for non booking is not what is important but the fact that there is inconsistency in such bookings is what needs to be addressed.

 

[four_or_six]

I think there may be some leniency being applied with the review system decisions, it certainly seems that players are being allowed to question what's going on with decisions when they wouldn't otherwise. Presumably that's because it's a new system.

I didn't actually see the incident you're referring to, though.

 

[zaremba]

I think there may be some leniency being applied with the review system decisions, it certainly seems that players are being allowed to question what's going on with decisions when they wouldn't otherwise. Presumably that's because it's a new system.

This.

Or alternatively it's a massive and ridiculous nepotist conspiracy.

I can't make my mind up.

 

[Sir Alex]

I think there may be some leniency being applied with the review system decisions, it certainly seems that players are being allowed to question what's going on with decisions when they wouldn't otherwise. Presumably that's because it's a new system.

I didn't actually see the incident you're referring to, though.

I do not agree with that viewpoint four_or_six, because if it is a new system better get a grip of it before stepping into the lawn. The umpire ruled him out and there is no room for discussing pros and cons of the UDRS with umpires after that, just walk off.
Broad's conduct was ridiculed by Vaughan and Hussain as well.

 

[Streetwise]

Your argument is kind of wierd because it assumes umpires are always forthright. unbiased and not given into external influences which is basically what Gavaskar is doubting. I don't think there is nepotism but given visual proof of the incident (there is no business for him to stay on pitch and remonstrate with the umpire after he was given out, whether the discussion was about his dismissal or the upcoming christmas turkey is irrelevant), he was plainly in the wrong and deserved a booking. We have seen people getting booked for merely "nodding in disapproval" their head after a dismissal (Rohit Sharma). As I said before the cause for non booking is not what is important but the fact that there is inconsistency in such bookings is what needs to be addressed.

Your arguement is even wierder. An umpire books a player for disputing the decision not for talking to him or asking questions. A bowler talks to the umpire all the time asking questions, you may have noticed bowlers asking if an LBW was turned down because it was going down leg. They are not disputing the call but talking to the umpire.
So as you can see if a bowler walks up to the umpire and says "that was out and you should have given it" after an appeal can be different to a bowler walking up to the umpire and saying " was that close or way to far down leg". Should the umpire treat them both as dissent.
The man in the middle knows what happens and acts appropiately.

 

[zaremba]

Exactly. It's faintly ridiculous that people can pretend to know whether two cases are comparable without actually having heard what the players concerned have actually said to the umpires.

 

[Sir Alex]

Your arguement is even wierder. An umpire books a player for disputing the decision not for talking to him or asking questions. A bowler talks to the umpire all the time asking questions, you may have noticed bowlers asking if an LBW was turned down because it was going down leg. They are not disputing the call but talking to the umpire.
So as you can see if a bowler walks up to the umpire and says "that was out and you should have given it" after an appeal can be different to a bowler walking up to the umpire and saying " was that close or way to far down leg". Should the umpire treat them both as dissent.
The man in the middle knows what happens and acts appropiately.

Firstly I don't believe bowlers have the right to ask the umpire whether it is sliding down the legside. The umpire's verdict is final and the bowler ought to accept it and move on, or under the present law, refer it. Secondly, bowlers talking to umpires is completely different from batsmen talking to umpires post a dismissal. Once given out, the batsman has no business standing there and gesticulating. I hope you watched the video of that because you'd know what I mean. Thirdly, your assumption that "the man in the middle knows it all" is what the debate is all about.

 

[Sir Alex]

Exactly. It's faintly ridiculous that people can pretend to know whether two cases are comparable without actually having heard what the players concerned have actually said to the umpires.

zaremba I hope you caught the footage of the incident.

I am quoting the relevant portion from ICC Code of Conduct:

1.3 Showing dissent at an
umpires decision

Includes excessive, obvious disappointment with an
umpire’s decision, an obvious delay in resuming play
or leaving the wicket, shaking the head, pointing or
looking at the inside edge when given out lbw,
pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when
caught behind, snatching the cap from the umpire,
requesting a referral to the TV umpire, a bowler or
fielder arguing or entering into a prolonged
discussion with the umpire about his decision

The last "emboldened" part is what Broad did.

 

[zaremba]

Firstly I don't believe bowlers have the right to ask the umpire whether it is sliding down the legside. The umpire's verdict is final and the bowler ought to accept it and move on, or under the present law, refer it. Secondly, bowlers talking to umpires is completely different from batsmen talking to umpires post a dismissal. Once given out, the batsman has no business standing there and gesticulating. I hope you watched the video of that because you'd know what I mean. Thirdly, your assumption that "the man in the middle knows it all" is what the debate is all about.

The men in the middle heard what Broad said. You didn't. Therefore you are in a spectacularly weak position to second-guess the umpire's (and match referee's) decision not to book Broad.

As for four_or_six's point about the newness of the technology, well I have little doubt that that's right. Now you may disagree as to whether that provides mitigation (personally, I think it does) but regardless of that it is rather more likely to have featured in the officials' deicision-making than the identity of the player's father.

 

[zaremba]

zaremba I hope you caught the footage of the incident.

I am quoting the relevant portion from ICC Code of Conduct:

1.3 Showing dissent at an
umpires decision

Includes excessive, obvious disappointment with an
umpire’s decision, an obvious delay in resuming play
or leaving the wicket, shaking the head, pointing or
looking at the inside edge when given out lbw,
pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when
caught behind, snatching the cap from the umpire,
requesting a referral to the TV umpire, a bowler or
fielder arguing or entering into a prolonged
discussion with the umpire about his decision

The last "emboldened" part is what Broad did.

I did see the incident but without having heard what Broad actually said, or what the umpires said to him, it's not necessarily right to say that his conduct was in breach either of the letter or the spirit of this Law.

Besides, there is a point about mitigation which you don't seem to have taken into account. The point made by four_or_six is that we're in very new territory with these referrals and the situation where a fielding team takes the best part of a minute to refer a decision was unprecedented. This is powerful mitigation which plainly would not apply in the other cases to which you have referred.

 

[Sir Alex]

The men in the middle heard what Broad said. You didn't. Therefore you are in a spectacularly weak position to second-guess the umpire's (and match referee's) decision not to book Broad.

According to ICC code of conduct, a prolonged discussion is culpable regardless of what it is about.

Secondly, I have repeated I am not supporting Gavaskar's claims of nepotism behind the non - booking but am criticizing the "non booking" per se which is completely in violation of ICC Code of conduct.

Broad was basically whingeing about the time delay involved in the referral by South Africans. Even if he was cent per right he had no business standing there on the ground, gesticulating and animatedly arguing with the umpires. The right way should have been accepting the verdict, coming off the ground and later officially lodging a complaint with the referee if he had any issues.

 

[zaremba]

Broad was basically whingeing about the time delay involved in the referral by South Africans. Even if he was cent per right he had no business standing there on the ground, gesticulating and animatedly arguing with the umpires. The right way should have been accepting the verdict, coming off the ground and later officially lodging a complaint with the referee if he had any issues.

You don't know what he said. You don't know what the umpires said to him. They are in a better position to judge whether there was misconduct of sufficient gravity to warrant a formal sanction than you are.

 

[Sir Alex]

I did see the incident but without having heard what Broad actually said, or what the umpires said to him, it's not necessarily right to say that his conduct was in breach either of the letter or the spirit of this Law.

Besides, there is a point about mitigation which you don't seem to have taken into account. The point made by four_or_six is that we're in very new territory with these referrals and the situation where a fielding team takes the best part of a minute to refer a decision was unprecedented. This is powerful mitigation which plainly would not apply in the other cases to which you have referred.

I am curious as to why you think it was not in breach of letter of the law as the law clearly states any prolonged discussion on field with the umpire post the batsman has been dismissed as chargeable.

UDRS is a system put into place by ICC and administered by the officials which includes the match referees and umpires. So it is implictly meant the player has to bide by what the umpire says and trudge off the ground when given out. May I ask, what "clarity" would have Broad got standing there and arguing with the umpire? Umpires are there for a reason and if he has a problem accepting their authority then it needs to be seriously examined.

 

[Streetwise]

According to ICC code of conduct, a prolonged discussion is culpable regardless of what it is about.

.

And who makes the judgement on what constitutes a prolonged discussion, the umpire, you or is there a time limit.

 

[Sir Alex]

You don't know what he said. You don't know what the umpires said to him. They are in a better position to judge whether there was misconduct of sufficient gravity to warrant a formal sanction than you are.

Actually I don't need to bother about what he said to the umpires after he was given out. Because ICC Code of Conduct Clause 1.3 says as under :

Showing dissent at an umpires decision :" ...... or entering into a prolonged discussion with the umpire about his decision"

Discussion of any sort comes under that clause.

 

[zaremba]

excessive, obvious disappointment with an
umpire’s decision, an obvious delay in resuming play
or leaving the wicket, shaking the head, pointing or
looking at the inside edge when given out lbw,
pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when
caught behind, snatching the cap from the umpire,
requesting a referral to the TV umpire, a bowler or
fielder arguing or entering into a prolonged
discussion with the umpire about his decision

The last "emboldened" part is what Broad did.

Ok let's break this down.

With regard to the first emboldened part,

1. Was there "excessive" disappointment shown? It's a judgment call for the umpires to make having regard to all the relevant circumstances. In particular it depends on what he said, and what they said to him.

2. Was there an obvious delay in him leaving the wicket? No, he was making his comments as he left the pitch. He didn't hang around. Besides, the context of the incident was a massive delay while the SA team considered whether to call for a review, and then a further delay as the off-field umpire made his decision. Against that background, a short delay in leaving would have been more forgiveable than a similar delay in different circumstances

With regard to the second emboldened part, this expressly applies only to bowlers and fielders, not to batsmen.

 

[Sir Alex]

And who makes the judgement on what constitutes a prolonged discussion, the umpire, you or is there a time limit.

Rohit Sharma got penalised for standing a "few seconds" after being (wrongfully) given out and shaking his head for "dissent" under the clause.

Taking that as a precedent, it is obvious even "a few seconds" count as "prolonged" under that clause.

 

[zaremba]

Actually I don't need to bother about what he said to the umpires after he was given out. Because ICC Code of Conduct Clause 1.3 says as under :

Showing dissent at an umpires decision :" ...... or entering into a prolonged discussion with the umpire about his decision"

Discussion of any sort comes under that clause.

See the post I've just made. This part of the Law applies to the fielding team but not the batsman.

 

[Streetwise]

Rohit Sharma got penalised for standing a "few seconds" after being (wrongfully) given out and shaking his head for "dissent" under the clause.

Taking that as a precedent, it is obvious even "a few seconds" count as "prolonged" under that clause.

No you have it wrong again, Sharma was penalised for disputing the umpires decision not for prolonged discussion. He was not penalised for standing there for a few seconds, he was penalised for indicating to the umpire that it was not out.

 

[Sir Alex]

Ok let's break this down.

With regard to the first emboldened part,

1. Was there "excessive" disappointment shown? It's a judgment call for the umpires to make having regard to all the relevant circumstances. In particular it depends on what he said, and what they said to him.

Of course judgement call is left for the umpires but the fact is majority of the cricket community including such distinguished persons like Vaughan and Hussain felt it was not the case.

I don't know what to make of it if it is not "excessive" disappointment to be honest.

2. Was there an obvious delay in him leaving the wicket? No, he was making his comments as he left the pitch. He didn't hang around. Besides, the context of the incident was a massive delay while the SA team considered whether to call for a review, and then a further delay as the off-field umpire made his decision. Against that background, a short delay in leaving would have been more forgiveable than a similar delay in different circumstances

Of course there was an obvious delay in him leaving the delay and the context of the same does not matter as I said in my previous post.

With regard to the second emboldened part, this expressly applies only to bowlers and fielders, not to batsmen.[/QUOTE]