"Lord Snooty" <lordus_snootus@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1113514549.965288.247070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
It would have been better if BCCI had waited for the end of this> series and privately talked/forced Saurav into standing down as> captain & even as a player. Maybe Saurav would have done it> himself. However this vidictive behaviour from a cricketing nobody> towards a guy who has contributed immensely to Indian cricket just> looks plain indecent to me
So you are saying BCCI is responsible for the slow over rate in the last two matches? I believe it is not missing a couple of overs but missed the over rate by a mile. So Ganguly is penalized by the referee and banned for 6 matches, but you don't want him to be dropped from the team or captaincy, is that right? You mean BCCI should have opposed it similar to the South Africa incident?
I agree they *could* have reinstated him back in the team after the ban is temporarily lifted, but the whole issue started because of Ganguly's action, don't you think so?
Takeiteasy.
- to some it might be "the good old> indian days when parochial jokers ruled bcci", i just look> differently at it.
Andrew Dunford 15 April 2005 06:40:24 [ permanent link ]
"Tweedle Dee" <tweedle@sunflower.com> wrote in message news:115u92a468dfl6b@corp.supernews.com...>
I will tell you what is a mile. In the ICC Champions trophy final> > Vaughan was found to be as many as 5 overs behind the mark. And this> > was not a day out in the harsh baking sun with the bowlers tired,> > this was in the mild weather of England. And this was not a leather> > hunt of 320+ runs, they were defending meager score of about 210.> > And it was not like there was enough sunlight even after the game> > got over (as in A'bad), no, here the stadium had plunged into> > near darkness.> >
This, my friend, is a mile. So let's have some perspective here> > about the graveness of the 'offense' and how much it really> > brought the game into disrepute.>
This is interesting. So what was the penalty imposed on Vaughan then?
50% of his match fee, as laid out in the Code of Conduct (5% per over per player, doubled for the captain). And of course he'll cop a Level 3 charge if it happens again within twelve months, unless the match referee forgets.
I will tell you what is a mile. In the ICC Champions trophy final> Vaughan was found to be as many as 5 overs behind the mark. And this> was not a day out in the harsh baking sun with the bowlers tired,> this was in the mild weather of England. And this was not a leather> hunt of 320+ runs, they were defending meager score of about 210.> And it was not like there was enough sunlight even after the game> got over (as in A'bad), no, here the stadium had plunged into> near darkness.>
This, my friend, is a mile. So let's have some perspective here> about the graveness of the 'offense' and how much it really> brought the game into disrepute.
This is interesting. So what was the penalty imposed on Vaughan then?
Take it easy wrote:>> "Lord Snooty" <lordus_snootus@yahoo.com> wrote in>> news:1113514549.965288.247070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>
It would have been better if BCCI had waited for the end of>> > this series and privately talked/forced Saurav into standing>> > down as captain & even as a player. Maybe Saurav would have>> > done it himself. However this vidictive behaviour from a>> > cricketing nobody towards a guy who has contributed immensely>> > to Indian cricket just looks plain indecent to me >>
So you are saying BCCI is responsible for the slow over rate in>> the last two matches? I believe it is not missing a couple of>> overs but missed the over rate by a mile. >
A mile, eh?
I could be wrong here since I don't know the amount of delay, etc. I was mainly replying to the OP's accusation of BCCI.
After taking into account various factors that were beyond the> control of the captain, from the match referee's quick calculation> (the details of which we will never know) he was found short by 3> overs. That's just about enough to put it as a level 2 offense.> Had he been found short by even 2 overs, the offense would not> have been level 2 and Ganguly would have been untouched. In> essence, it was 1, just 1 over which could as well have fallen > within the errors of the over rate calculation, that did him in.
As per Andrew it took 4 hours to bowl 48 overs. Normally 50 overs are bowled in 3 and half hours. I don't know what kind of delay (which is not under the control of the fielding side) happened to account for about 30-40 minutes lost. I wish somebody can give an update. The other factors that could influence like injuries to the batsmen/fielders (I don't think there were many), left-right combination (didn't happen after Butt was out which is around 15th over).
I will tell you what is a mile. In the ICC Champions trophy final
As I mentioned above, my argument is not whether Ganguly's ban was justified or not, but whether BCCI should have waited till the end of series to bring him down from captaincy.
<snip>
So Ganguly is penalized by the referee and banned for 6 matches,>> but you don't want him to be dropped from the team or captaincy,>> is that right? You mean BCCI should have opposed it similar to>> the South Africa incident? >>
The BCCI should have done something the minute Chris Broad> was appointed referee.
Andrew Dunford 15 April 2005 09:34:44 [ permanent link ]
"Take it easy" <takeiteasyjay2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9638E12F92D00takeiteasynospamcom@216.196.97.136...> "Govandi" <govandi24@hotmail.com> wrote in> news:1113530020.652690.76560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:>
Take it easy wrote:> >> "Lord Snooty" <lordus_snootus@yahoo.com> wrote in> >> news:1113514549.965288.247070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:> >>
It would have been better if BCCI had waited for the end of> >> > this series and privately talked/forced Saurav into standing> >> > down as captain & even as a player. Maybe Saurav would have> >> > done it himself. However this vidictive behaviour from a> >> > cricketing nobody towards a guy who has contributed immensely> >> > to Indian cricket just looks plain indecent to me> >>
So you are saying BCCI is responsible for the slow over rate in> >> the last two matches? I believe it is not missing a couple of> >> overs but missed the over rate by a mile.> >
A mile, eh?>
I could be wrong here since I don't know the amount of delay, etc. I> was mainly replying to the OP's accusation of BCCI.>
After taking into account various factors that were beyond the> > control of the captain, from the match referee's quick calculation> > (the details of which we will never know) he was found short by 3> > overs. That's just about enough to put it as a level 2 offense.> > Had he been found short by even 2 overs, the offense would not> > have been level 2 and Ganguly would have been untouched. In> > essence, it was 1, just 1 over which could as well have fallen> > within the errors of the over rate calculation, that did him in.>
As per Andrew it took 4 hours to bowl 48 overs. Normally 50 overs> are bowled in 3 and half hours. I don't know what kind of delay> (which is not under the control of the fielding side) happened to> account for about 30-40 minutes lost. I wish somebody can give an> update. The other factors that could influence like injuries to the> batsmen/fielders (I don't think there were many), left-right> combination (didn't happen after Butt was out which is around 15th> over).
It is interesting that fixed time allowances are built into the Code of Conduct when calculating the over rate for Test matches (two minutes per wicket taken, four minutes per session for a drinks break) but these allowances are not made for odos. I presume this means that the 210 minutes allowed in which to bowl 50 odo overs is considered ample by the ICC to be ample, irrespective of the number of wickets which fall. Similarly, other time-consuming factors such as changing the field for different-handed batsmen or high scoring are not considered, and neither should or can they be IMO. Time taken attending to injuries to batsmen or fieldsmen is deducted, as is time elapsed whilst the third umpire is consulted.
In response to Govandi's point, it strikes me that India was indeed 'miles' behind the over rate in the fourth odo, and that Vaughan in the No Champions Trophy example given was 'miles and miles' behind (I say that without knowing of any extenuating circumstances).
Not that I think the current solution works: it is simply another effort in a long line of attempts at finding a workable solution. I do sympathise to some extent with the side fielding second in a tight run chase.
