More »
Showing posts with label Australia vs West Indies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia vs West Indies. Show all posts
could chris broad have done anything differently...?
much as the ban on benn is harsh and unfortunate... much as the crap judgment thrust upon him ...but i was thinking... could broad have done anything differently...?
your case is as good as the FIR lodged by you... against you...
the framing of charges depends upon the investigation officer's investigation and observations and once the charges are framed (rightly or wrongly) the court cannot go beyond the scope of charges framed...
much like this story... when a nurse was raped and strangled and left to die... police lodged the FIR against culprit... and framed charges for attempted murder and stealing the earrings... but they never framed charges for a rape... coz police was not convinced the rape happened...
the result?
he got convicted for seven years in jail... but not for the rape...
however unfortunate the story is but to drive home the point...
the judiciary system always works like that...a judge cannot go beyond the scope of charges framed... and is bound to deliver justice on that premise... even if they know it... court can take matters suo moto and direct respective authorities to book a case but once the charges are framed the proceeding will be limited to that...
icc is no different... they too (would) have devised the process along these lines...
so once on field umpires in the elite panel appointed by the icc prepare a report and lay it in front of the match referee, again appointed by the icc, i think he was bound to go by the charges framed against the culprits (benn, haddin & johnson)... it is the duty of on field umpires to prepare and report the incident as they interpret it would have happened and frame charges accordingly (justifiably or not)...
chris broad could or could not have taken action... but once he decided to take action he could not have gone beyond the scope of the report or charges pressed by umpires... as far as i understand...
so i think more than broad... the on field umpires pissed in their pants... could not muster enough courage and/or grossly failed to report it the way it happened... hence the judgment...
disclaimer: i am not trying to justify broad or the judgment... which i think is nothing but bullshit... but i am just trying to explore possibilities and initiate debate in this light...
Yet Again, Justice Has Been Served Down Under
Incident - Bowler tries to field, gets in non-striker's way. Who's at fault? I've always heard that it should be the non striker who tries get out of the fielder's way.
Well Brad Haddin didn't seem to think so. And he makes it quite clear by...
Incident - Batsman unnecessarily creates a confrontation with the bowler, points his bat at him. Who's at fault? No point asking Haddin, even clinching video evidence doesn't seem to convince him that he could be wrong. But its pretty clear there is only one person who instigated the confrontation.
Incident - Batsman drives back to bowler who picks up the ball and hurls it back. Who's at fault? I've always thought this is a rather stupid thing to do, but a lot of bowlers seem to keep doing it and I can't recall anyone being punished for it.
Incident - Bowler goes across to have a chat (thats kinda putting it lightly, but thats the way these incidents have been described in the past when the bowler was McGrath, Donald, Flintoff etc) with the batsman after his over. Who's at fault? The bowler of course, but just as much as the batsman was for provoking him a few balls earlier with that unnecessary exchange.
Incident - Bowler's hand accidentally brushes one of the batsman who actually positioned himself directly in between himself and the other batsman in the confrontation. Angry batsman shoves the bowler aside. Who's at fault? Even if someone did deliberately knock you with their arm, shoving them is hardly the best way to react, and because you have deliberately reacted physically, you have out yourself in the worst possible light and deserve to be penalized at the same level (or above in the event that the original knock was accidental) for bringing the game into disrepute.
That all seems pretty straightforward. Three idiots on the cricket field, all acting rather deplorably, but its worth pointing out that it was Haddin who made this an incident in the first place and that Johnson took things to another level. All three should be penalized equally at the very least, unless Johnson gets the stiffest penalty for deliberately engaging an opposition player in a hostile physical manner. Right?
Well, not according to the subcontinental team's favorite match referee, Chris Broad. Broad decided to hand Haddin and Johnson level one offences while handing out a level two offence to Benn. What this means is the most Johnson and Haddin can lose is 50% of their match fees, while Benn will lose between 50-100% of his fees and/or possibly be banned for a match. Naturally suddenly "everyone" is talking about what a nasty and "unusual" character Benn is. Nobody seems to think its worth talking about Haddin's hilarious conduct earlier in the year and Johnson's constant runs in with batsman who dispatch his mostly ordinary bowling.
While it might have left a few West Indian's scratching their heads, it certainly wouldn't have surprised players who represented India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka during the early 2000s when Broad seemed hell bent on penalizing them with whatever he could think of while ignoring similar offences by players from Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. For a former player with one the most disgraceful reputations in the game for his own conduct on the field, he sure does an awful lot to try and curb aggressive behavior in the middle. Oh, did I forget to add, only just not as much to cricketers from certain countries. Because you know, like Steve Bucknor said, some are more equal than others.
Preview: West Indies v Australia
India v Pakistan Live 5.45 PM IST.
Both the Aussies and the Pansies of the Caribbean will be mindful of this. Who wants to miss a game that's "more than a game"-"not just a game" Both teams will look to finish their 1pm game before 6pm. Unless of course they have pms. Naturally, the game's duration depends more on the Aussies: They cannot bat first. Where as if the Pansies bat first, it can be a nifty T20 game, and everybody will be happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
