The key word is ‘discretion’ which unfortunately gives them the power to do whatever they want. So by amending this, it will save a lot of headaches in the future.

On a different note, if only the Indian camp had viewed and raised an objection along the vein of Watson’s deliberate attempt to obstruct the player attempting a run rather than just only a case of abusing, perhaps he also could be forced to get a serious rap.

They should have created a tom tom on this, as it can be easily proven and there are harsh laws on obstructing a player deliberately.

A case for brownie points … maybe we missed that plot.

Cheers again

I agree that the process is left to the Appeals
Commissioner. I have no problems with the process but rather with the implementation of the process. Sachs had a burning desire to deliver clarity to Indian selectors. That is outside his remit. Instead, he should have afforded the right to legal representation to the charged.

Look at how the AFL conducts its business. The ICC is a joke and has demonstrated it yet again in this instance.

Mohan

This is a very interesting article with a nice discussion going in the comments.

However, I would like to share my thoughts on this. I understand that you have raised an important question on whether natural justice was given to Gambhir and whether the ‘process’ was followed by denying him legal representation.

As per the ICC code of conduct, which defines in a set of rules the process and their definition of these rules serving natural justice, this is what it says..

“The process for conducting the hearing shall be left to the discretion of the Appeals
Commissioner. Oral representations (either in person or by telephone conference as
determined in the discretion of the Appeals Commissioner) should be permitted unless there
are good reasons for relying on written submissions only. Where it is available, he shall view video tape of the incident which is the subject matter of the appeal.”

On the debate here on the process as such, it is clearly defined that it is up to the discretion of the hearing judge. And the rest with regard to the law explains why the judge had to clearly communicate in the report the reasons for relying only on written communications, which he has.

And the next part of the law stands

“The decision of the Appeals Commissioner shall be final and binding.”

As you see by the rules, it is one completely on the discretion of the judge for the process and reasoning and his word stands final… almost like a parallel to contempt of court.

In essence, they have everything under the laws defined, approved and taken an oath to abide by the ICC and its member boards, including the BCCI.

As much as I am as an Indian fan, who also blogs about cricket, the way forward for the BCCI is not rattle out a letter of this nature and give out statements in the media about how they will include Gambhir in spite of the ruling.

That is sad, autocratic and repulsive.

On a serious note, you have written a well-constructed argument on the need of giving power to the player to have a legal representative as his right.

The way forward should be that the BCCI address this and amend the rules with the ICC in the right forum and place in Dubai and not every time an Indian player gets the whip.

The BCCI just attempted to flaunt the rules they had agreed to and that is not right. Let them address any concern or suggestion in the right forum.

Also on abuses, the law says it is completely in the discretion of the umpire to report a case, which may needs some thinking due to cultural in-sensitivities.

On a jovial note, there are laws on the conduct of a match referee too. And Broad flaunted one when he made some comment on one of the umpires giving a terrible decision! He is free though LOL.

As an Australian, I don’t see Hussey’s act as of dumping the Warriors as mercenary. Players like he, Hayden, Gilchrist, Warne and others loved the IPL and will go to the Champions League out of respect for what the Indians do. I know an Aussie player who is going and he can’t wait to get there. He is excited about the prospect and respectful of the Indians. He is not mercenary. Your conclusion that it is all mercenary is how Australians generally treat India and Indians — with distrust and scorn. The moment you loosen up, open your eyes and welcome cultural differences, it becomes easier to understand.

You are a serial pest and an irritant on a wonderful blog. Someone else earlier termed this a “vibrant blog”. If you can’t contribute sensibly, please take your business elsewhere. You are like that irritable kid that insists on farting even when he knows it is a disturbance to everyone around him. I visit this blog 2-3 times a day and am irritated by your mindless observations and contributions. If you cannot contribute sensibly could you please go away? This is a polite request.

My slender body and shoulders can only hold chips on them–unlike yours that have FORESTS on them!!!!!!!