***Official*** India in West Indies

[Sanz]

he is human after all.

And quite obviously Sehwag isn't human.

 

[Sanz]

Well, Lara has had a clean record till now

Clean Record as in ? AFAIK, Lara has been fined couple of times for dissent, slow over rate, quitting a tour etc.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Was Sehwag fined for not turning around to appeal?

 

[adharcric]

Well Dravid and Chapell were present when they(officials) were talking about the Dhoni incident so unless they were totally ignored we can assume they had no problem withit so neither should anyone else. He stood up for his team but probably should have done it more courteously, I can understand if he didn't though and the way he reacted, he is human after all.

Utter rubbish. First of all, the match referee is not there to listen to complaints from players and coaches and appease them. He is getting paid to assess the on-field conduct according to the well-known standards of cricket. The motive behind Lara's action doesn't mean anything; no one ever acts poorly just to be an ***, they all do it because they are competitive and don't have control over their actions. As for him being "human", that's trash too. He wasn't supposed to get fined because he's a bad individual, he was supposed to get fined for his bad action/conduct. There is no excuse for this.

 

[adharcric]

Well, Lara has had a clean record till now, that might have gone in his favour. Indians in general have a reputation of being excessive appealers so Sehwag got the fine.
Double standards, but what are you gonna do?

If we keep excusing Lara because he has a clean record, he will have the liberty to do whatever the hell he wants to knowing that he's safe no matter what. As I mentioned, cricketers aren't punished for their past history, character or ethics; they're getting punished for their on-field actions ... and Lara's was as bad as it gets in terms of dissent.

 

[viktor]

Was Sehwag fined for not turning around to appeal?

Refer this article: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivind/content/current/story/249874.html


and here's the relevant part:
******
Sehwag was found to have breached section 1.5 of the ICC Code which relates to "the practice of celebrating a dismissal before the decision has been given". He removed Dwayne Bravo and Denesh Ramdin on the final day as West Indies hung on by one-wicket to save the match.
*******
I think it was with Bravo's dismissal, Dhoni took the catch and Sehwag just punched the air and ran down the pitch.

 

[adharcric]

I must say, that sounds pretty stupd. With a lbw decision it makes sense, but when a guy's caught out, why would you turn around?

 

[Dasa]

I must say, that sounds pretty stupd. With a lbw decision it makes sense, but when a guy's caught out, why would you turn around?

I could still take it if there was some consistency...but the fact that Lara got away with something that is blatantly against the 'spirit of the game' he spoke about after the incident is galling.

 

[viktor]

I must say, that sounds pretty stupd. With a lbw decision it makes sense, but when a guy's caught out, why would you turn around?

Ofcourse its stupid. When they first brought it out, they gave some silly reason that premature celebration put pressure on the umpires, and there was some criticsm of the rule, but as Dasa said, you want to apply crap rules, fine but apply them to everybody and consistently across the board.

 

[adharcric]

An insightful reflection on this controversy at Cricinfo. Check it out.

 

[marc71178]

Either Billy Doctrove is a biased coward or the ICC is a load of ********.

What's it to do with Doctrove?

 

[marc71178]

All Sehwag did was not look at the ump when Bravo got out. It isn't really dissent; no player, even Bravo, would call that dissent.

And no match official did either, so what's the problem there?

The match referee made the call that it was dissent based on some rulebook.

No, he did not, he fined Sehwag for excessive appealing.

The question is, isn't snatching the ball from an umpire dissent?

The video link on here makes the word "snatch" appear a bit over the top. He took the ball from the umpire yes, but not in an aggressive way so as to call it a snatch (unless of course he gave the umpire the ball back and a few minutes later did snatch it?)

Either way, the umpires didn't deem it bad enough to report him did they, and they're the ones who know more about the issue then anyone watching from the side.

And it isn't just about Sehwag, Jayawardene was fined 20% for breaking his stumps when he got out.

Yes, but again that has nothing to do with dissent since there was no doubt about the decision. He showed annoyance in himself for getting out, and immediately apologised to the umpires because he realised he'd done wrong.

 

[marc71178]

As I mentioned, cricketers aren't punished for their past history, character or ethics;

Except they are - remember Ganguly's ban, that wasn't for just one incidence, it was because he'd built up a large number in a relatively short period.

 

[adharcric]

What's it to do with Doctrove?

My bad, I thought he was the match referee. He was 3rd umpire I think, never mind.

 

[adharcric]

Except they are - remember Ganguly's ban, that wasn't for just one incidence, it was because he'd built up a large number in a relatively short period.

In that case his history mattered because the over-rate isn't as blatant an offense IMO. For what Lara did, just doing it once is enough to merit a fine. Yes, he did snatch the ball from the umpire. Duh, he didn't scratch Rauf on the arm, slap him on the left cheek, shove him and then steal the ball ... but he did take the ball away from him when he wasn't given the ball and then went on ignoring Rauf. The other "dissent" act was privately asking Dhoni to declare himself out after he had already been given not out.

 

[marc71178]

I disagree - there was no aggression in the move to take the ball, and if the umpire didn't want him to have it, there's no way he could get it out of his hand without aggression.

 

[viktor]

And no match official did either, so what's the problem there?

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivind/content/current/story/249874.html

No, he did not, he fined Sehwag for excessive appealing.

*****
Sehwag was found to have breached section 1.5 of the ICC Code which relates to "the practice of celebrating a dismissal before the decision has been given". He removed Dwayne Bravo and Denesh Ramdin on the final day as West Indies hung on by one-wicket to save the match.
******

]The video link on here makes the word "snatch" appear a bit over the top. He took the ball from the umpire yes, but not in an aggressive way so as to call it a snatch (unless of course he gave the umpire the ball back and a few minutes later did snatch it?)

Either way, the umpires didn't deem it bad enough to report him did they, and they're the ones who know more about the issue then anyone watching from the side.

I saw it live and it looked just as bad to me in real time. I think that may be open to interpretation. What was clear was that Lara quite clearly was displeased by Rauf's decision to recall Dhoni and tried to do all he could to overturn it; this included pressurising the batsma, pressurizing the umps and sulking like a queen.
The umpires need a kick up their backsides if they didn't think it was dissent. Also, isn't it finally the match ref's responsibility whether or not the umps report it? (Not a rhetorical question, am confused about that aspect.)

Yes, but again that has nothing to do with dissent since there was no doubt about the decision. He showed annoyance in himself for getting out, and immediately apologised to the umpires because he realised he'd done wrong.

No that wasn't dissent (jayawardene). It was acting against the spirit of the game. My point is, if the match ref there could not be understanding enough to take into account jaya..'s reaction given the match situation, why was Lara given that benefit? his actions are also against the spirit of the game.

 

[adharcric]

I disagree - there was no aggression in the move to take the ball, and if the umpire didn't want him to have it, there's no way he could get it out of his hand without aggression.

Alright whatever, even if you don't feel he "snatched" the ball away, surely the rest qualifies as dissent by a fair margin. Doesn't it? First off, he showed dissent in its most basic form by arguing with the umpires after they made a decision. Then he ignored their decision and took matters into his own hand with Dhoni.

 

[honestbharani]

It's really a shame if Daren Ganga gets any stick over this though, as he did nothing that should tarnish his reputation. It was very clear that he indicated that he was uncertain as to whether he touched the boundary line.

The problem was, Liam, first he said he wasn't sure. Then he went up to Lara and said he was sure. AT least, that is how all the reports indicate things to have been. Then it is clear that a part of the blame should be on him.

 

[honestbharani]

The difference is Waugh was sure that he took the catch, Ganga wasn't sure and he said so. And as you said, Lara did wait for the 3rd Umpire's decision meaning he didn't take Waugh's word first time.

Like I said in my last post, Ganga contradicting himself is the basis for the whole problem. But even then, if Ganga was sure he had caught (even if he wasn't earlier) it still would have made sense if Dhoni had just walked and the umpires decided to trust the fielders' words. Anyways, it seems what irked Lara the most was that even after he had that little chat with Dhoni and claimed responsibility for his team and guaranteed their word, Dhoni still decided to talk to Kaif before deciding what to do. Maybe that is what ticked off Lara. NOt saying it was right, but it may just be how things panned out that day.