They probably wouldn't need to do that; I'd imagine the umpires would step in if Gambhir is seen in whites this week.Well the BCCI seem to be treating the ICC with absolute contempt.
If India try to select Gambhir then Australia should refuse to play, simple as that.
To be honest, I was on the side of the fence that there was nothing in it as far as Gambhir's behaviour goes. Thought it was accidental. But he's admitted that he did it deliberately, citing Aussie verbals as the reason for it. He's lucky he's only out for one match, really.If true, yea, this is out of line. If they bothered to read the report by Justice Sachs, they'd know it was absolutely fair and his reasons were clear and compelling on why he denied the appeal.
DWTA. I believe on that occasion both SA and India agreed. This is completely different. With that said, I think it was wrong then too.They probably wouldn't need to do that; I'd imagine the umpires would step in if Gambhir is seen in whites this week.
The really chilling part for me is this;
"However there is a chance that India's strongly worded rebuke to the ICC will be a forerunner to their selecting the ineligible Gambhir to play in Nagpur, a situation that arose in 2001 when the banned Virender Sehwag was chosen to play against South Africa at Centurion Park despite his ban 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."
Playing an unofficial 'Test' was a balls-up worse than changing the result of Pakistan's forfeit, I reckon.
Oh that verdict was Deness was farce. It wa a shame in the game's face.They probably wouldn't need to do that; I'd imagine the umpires would step in if Gambhir is seen in whites this week.
The really chilling part for me is this;
"However there is a chance that India's strongly worded rebuke to the ICC will be a forerunner to their selecting the ineligible Gambhir to play in Nagpur, a situation that arose in 2001 when the banned Virender Sehwag was chosen to play against South Africa at Centurion Park despite his ban 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."
Playing an unofficial 'Test' was a balls-up worse than changing the result of Pakistan's forfeit, I reckon.
How is that questionable? It would be a ludicrous situation where a bloke did something bannable in one game but purely due to reasons of process, wasn't banned for the next available game.Though the ultra-urgent steps taken by ICC to ensure that the verdict was given before the Nagpur test looks questionable, the BCCI should accept the verdict. I think they have already, otherwise why should they name a replacement? Gambhir deserved the ban totally. Recording protests should not be confused with not accepting the verdict and abiding by it. Storm in a teacup this.
Not the first time, when Murali was called for chucking by Darrell Hair, the ICC had formally asked for an explanation from Cricket Australia, which they flatly refused to do.
Yeah and ICC is a paper tiger.
Yes, absolutely. This isn't like that at all.Oh that verdict was Deness was farce. It wa a shame in the game's face.
Oh I know Sehwag shouldn't have been banned. Just thought playing the unofficial Test was pointless.Oh that verdict was Deness was farce. It wa a shame in the game's face.
This is true and shows one of the disadvantages to the stacked Test program, really. Must be some way of compressing the process because we're not talking big briefs here. It's about one incident, not a murder case. Either that or give more time between games. The current arrangement is unacceptable.Not the first time, he had to be given sufficient time for appeal. The verdict comes, the appeal is made and then the verdict on the appeal is made the next day. And BCCI is saying in its letter that the verdict was given before proper preparations could be made to counter the verdict.
Yeah it's lucky, in terms of who holds the moral high-ground in this debate, his guilt was so clear-cut, especially as he admitted it. Without that..... I mean, the BCCI can kick and scream all they want about due process, doesn't change the fact Gambhir admitted he did it deliberately.But having said that, I prefer Gambhir getting this right now. He has been guilty of doing it in the past, and if still didnt learn from that, this should teach him. Fully justified.
Yep, and hopefully the youngsters also learn from this incident. And while I truly resent Katich going scot-free, there is nothing that can be argued in Gambhir's favor. The first thing to need as a test batsman is patience and letting the bat doing the talking, and with the Fab 4 around him, who have made tons of runs, and have not been booked once for such stupidity on the field, despite having faced provocations much worse than what Gambhir had to face. The sooner he understands that sledging by bowlers is actually an act of cowardice and insecurity on the part of bowlers that their balls are not doing enough talking, the better.This is true and shows one of the disadvantages to the stacked Test program, really. Must be some way of compressing the process because we're not talking big briefs here. It's about one incident, not a murder case. Either that or give more time between games. The current arrangement is unacceptable.
Yeah it's lucky, in terms of who holds the moral high-ground in this debate, his guilt was so clear-cut, especially as he admitted it. Without that..... I mean, the BCCI can kick and scream all they want about due process, doesn't change the fact Gambhir admitted he did it deliberately.
Katich should have at least got the same as Watson imoYep, and hopefully the youngsters also learn from this incident. And while I truly resent Katich going scot-free, there is nothing that can be argued in Gambhir's favor. The first thing to need as a test batsman is patience and letting the bat doing the talking, and with the Fab 4 around him, who have made tons of runs, and have not been booked once for such stupidity on the field, despite having faced provocations much worse than what Gambhir had to face. The sooner he understands that sledging by bowlers is actually an act of cowardice and insecurity on the part of bowlers that their balls are not doing enough talking, the better.