should have got 6 more matches, was his fault that there was misunderstanding.
Member of CW Green
Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator
Yeah.Originally Posted by age_master
Looks like the selectors have rejected him too.
Thats frankly a naive and IMO vindictive view.Originally Posted by age_master
When a person is held in custody during a hearing, and is sentenced to any period of time in prison, the time he spent in custody before the verdict is included as part of the final sentencing too.
Karthik_moo@hotmail.comMillhouse: you know when your dog ate my goldfish bart and you told me i never had a goldfish, then why did i have the bowl bart! why did i have the bowl!!!!
Member of the MSC and the AAAS
Wanna Search ?
Waughney : We are well taken care of here at the Rehab centre.
NO. It wasnt his fault.Originally Posted by age_master
He was willing to play if selected.
The selectors did not wait for the ICC's written decision and decided to implememnt the ban on their own. So ICC was correct in counting these two games a having been missed on account of the ban.
ICC clearly said he was elligible to play.
The selectors decided to NOT include him after the side was announced. In the words of Te Telegraph's Lokendra Pratap Sahi, he was DITCHED by the selectors.
Now the ICC has clearly said the ban period has not been changed. So I would imagine the correct verdict would have been to ban him from the next six matches.
the selectors said he was clear to play....so then it shouldn't be counted as part of the ban
but it was due to the suspension that he missed the games, so that is probably why they let it slip.
Well there is a politics behind it which one can only make conjectures about. But the official position is this.Originally Posted by Pratyush
1. According to BCCI, they were verbally informed by Broad that Ganguly had been banned for six games.
2. The BCCI secretary went on air and told a news conference (I heard and saw it myself) that beased on the verbal communication by the match refree BCCI had decided not to incl;ude Ganguly in the side 14 for the last two games.
3. Ganguly rushed to dalmiya, sat with him and got him and his lawyers to make out an appeal which was submitted the same day and got ICC to confirm that pending the appeal Ganguly could play.
4. The board now took the stand that having selected the 14 and informed the two new comers chosen in place og Ganguly and Irfan, they were going to stick to the same 14.
This is the correct sequence of events.
So while it is possible that ganguly has been finally prevented from playing by Mr Mahendra (an old enemy) and company, the pretext used is the Match Refree's verbal communication
AND ICC's confirmation that Ganguly could play pending the ban came AFTYER BCCI had made its move.
So Ganguly is NOT responsible for not playing inspite of being allowed, whosoever maybe
He could have only had 2 games added to the punishment though, because 8 is the maximum for that offence.Originally Posted by age_master
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
Ganguly finally got the punishment he deserved. As a captain it was his responsibility to complete the overs on time. And I hope ICC is consistent in handing out punishments.
To the person who said that Ganguly should have been for 6 more games because it was his fault, you couldn't be more biasd in your opinion.
He didnt mean 6 MORE games apart from the 6 already.Originally Posted by Sanz
He meant after the punishment was decided he should miss 6 games. Now Ganguly gets to miss the next 4 instead of six games.
That'll be a blow to Sri Lanka's hopes..Originally Posted by cricinfo
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."
I know what he meant.Originally Posted by Pratyush
Yeah Right !!, Indian team was doing so much better without him. :-)Originally Posted by Robertinho
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)