India refuses to accept Gambhir appeal verdict

India refuses to accept that opener Gautam Gambhir has lost his appeal to overturn a one-match ban for elbowing Australian all rounder Shane Watson during the third Test.

It follows ICC appeal commissioner Albie Sachs upholding match referee Chris Broad's decision to suspend Gambhir.

Under ICC regulations, the appeal verdict is final and cannot be questioned by a player or his board.

However, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has called Sachs' decision into question.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/cri...560877331.html



For all the arguing between the NH and SH unions (and even within SANZAR) I think we can be justifiably glad we do'nt have this sort of situation where one country, backed up by the $$$, can carry on like a petulant 2-year-old* with apparent immunity- next time we don't like someone being suspended, why not just lock out the match officials like these guys??

Not so long ago, I looked forward to series with India becasue they were the best contests in Cricket, now every series there's some sort of contraversy, that ususally involves India threatening to take thier bat and ball and go home.


*Apologies to those with 2 year olds who think comparing them to the prima-donnas in the Indian cricket team is unfair.

why don't they just threaten to take their bat and ball and go home...................oh wait.......................

Yet another example how a country from the sub-continent has used its weight of numbers to change the outcome of rulings, or even matches.

what a disgrace.

not weight in numbers. weight in Dollars, BCCI make alot of money through TV rights, amounts even the AFL could only dream of

he who pays the piper,plays the tune,it appears

THE International Cricket Council says the Gautam Gambhir elbowing case is closed despite Indian objections after the Test opener's one-match ban was confirmed.

The ICC returned serve today after India refused to accept Gambhir losing his appeal aginst a suspension for elbowing Australia's Shane Watson in the third Test in New Delhi.

Indian governing body, the BCCI sent the ICC a letter explaining why it would not accept the decision.

However, ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat indicated they had no option, a clear indication that Gambhir would not be allowed to play in the fourth Test in Nagpur starting later today.

"The ICC code of conduct is a robust and independent process designed to achieve a fair and proper outcome," said Lorgat in a statement.

"Although we have received an objection letter from the BCCI, there is nothing more that we can do as the appeal commissioner's decision is a final and binding decision.

"The matter is now closed and the ICC will make no further comment on the case."
.
.
.
An identical situation arose in 2001 when the banned Virender Sehwag was chosen to play against South Africa at Centurion Park despite a suspension for over-appealing.

On that occasion match referee Mike Denness, who imposed the ban, was locked out of the ground and the match declared unoffical by the ICC.
Rest here
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's hoping the ICC sticks it out. It will be interesting to see what they do if India picks him, because calling the game unofficial won't do it when they are ahead in the series.

In this case they have named a replacement (probably because they know the Aussies won't be complicit in making the match unofficial like the last mob), so we shoudln't see scenes like that again.


What annoys* me is that anyone else spinning lines like this with the regularity India do would get threatened with explusion from the ICC if they didn't pull their heads in. Instead, beacuse it's India, we get the sporting administraiton version of 'Hans Brix' in Team America- "We will write you a very nasty letter..."


*Feel free to insert the word you can reasonably assume I was actually thinking when i wrote that.

India RUNS the ICC !

While there is all this money, the money is only there because they have an international product - I wonder what would happen if the ICC suggested India ask the Saffers what happens if everyone is barred from playing against you? Would there be the money and interest if it was just their domestic cricket ad nauseum?

Unfortunately probably yes Andy, they love their cricket, even more than Victorians love their sport...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyS

While there is all this money, the money is only there because they have an international product - I wonder what would happen if the ICC suggested India ask the Saffers what happens if everyone is barred from playing against you? Would there be the money and interest if it was just their domestic cricket ad nauseum?

---

The advent of multiple Twenty20 championships, and their ability to pay the $$ to attract international stars makes me think they'd do alright. I can't get excited about a mish-mash of a team assembled at some billionaire's behest, but clearly alot of people did (FWIW, given the Warriors have dropped the WA part of their name for the upcoming championship in India, if Victoria maintain their identity as an Australian team, I'm going for them!).
It'd be nice to think people would still value playing for your country over making a quick buck, but then the old "a sportman only has a limited earning lifespan" chestnut comes out and it'd be 'Hello Mumbai'.

Besides, any attempt to actually do that would be met with cries of "racism", painted as an attempt to bring India down when they're on the verge of toppling Australia's ascendency and it'd never get off the ground.