Who will be Sehwag's temporary opening partner?

[marc71178]

That is a huge allegation. Indian board is within the rules to go for arbitration.

Even though the rules are quite specific about the ban being allowable and the only thing they're complaining about is the fact he's been banned for it?

 

[Pratters]

Even though the rules are quite specific about the ban being allowable and the only thing they're complaining about is the fact he's been banned for it?

Rules are quite specific about provision for an arbitrator. So I dont see your point.

 

[Shoaib]

They'll Force Mahindra Dhoni to open but I think Sadagoppan Ramesh should also be given another chance as an opener.

 

[adharcric]

For all of you who said Gambhir, would you keep 6 batsman and Dhoni or drop one of them for an all-rounder (>>Yadav)? If so, who would you drop? Laxman? Yuvraj?

 

[marc71178]

Rules are quite specific about provision for an arbitrator. So I dont see your point.

My point is that their only complaint is about the fact that he's been banned for something that they say he can't banned for.

The ICC rules quite clearly show that there is a way he can be banned for this offence, therefore there's no need for any arbitrator as it's an open and shut case, and they should've shut up when the initial appeal was, quite correctly, rejected.

I haven't seen the South African board kicking up a fuss about Smith's ban.

 

[Pratters]

My point is that their only complaint is about the fact that he's been banned for something that they say he can't banned for.

The ICC rules quite clearly show that there is a way he can be banned for this offence, therefore there's no need for any arbitrator as it's an open and shut case, and they should've shut up when the initial appeal was, quite correctly, rejected.

I haven't seen the South African board kicking up a fuss about Smith's ban.

While I totally agree and have always held that it was unnecessary to go for arbitration and it may well be an open and shut case as far as I am concerned too - Ganguly has been slow on over rates for far too long and it was about time he was punished - I think its going too far to say the Indian board refuse to accept rules as it is within the rules to go for arbitration.

 

[marc71178]

The mere fact of going for arbitration is refusing to accept the rules though.

 

[Pratters]

The mere fact of going for arbitration is refusing to accept the rules though.

Not really if a team feels rules have not been correctly followed. It then means the board is going out of the way to follow the rules!

 

[marc71178]

They're appealing against the fact he was banned being against the rules, but it's not - therefore they're not accepting the rules.

 

[Pratters]

They're appealing against the fact he was banned being against the rules, but it's not

mm The Indian board can have an alternate view point than you and I have Marc. They feel some diescrepency is there. So they are following rules.

 

[marc71178]

No they're not - they're going against the clear rules that are in place.

 

[Pratters]

No they're not - they're going against the clear rules that are in place.

Going for arbitration is not going against the rules.

 

[marc71178]

Do you want me to spell it out?

They're going to arbitration complaining that he's been banned for it.

The rules clearly state that the ban is an option for repeat offenders, hence they are refusing to accept the rules.

 

[Pratters]

Why cant it be that the Indian board feels the rules have been incorrectly implemented.

They may be mistaken but they are ensuring rules are correctly implemented. One way or the other.

 

[marc71178]

Why cant it be that the Indian board feels the rules have been incorrectly implemented.

The rules are perfectly clear to anyone that cares to read them

 

[Pratters]

The rules are perfectly clear to anyone that cares to read them

You mean laws will necesaarily always be implemented correctly? Why i the arbitration provision there then.

 

[marc71178]

For crying out loud - all they are challenging is that he's been banned.

The rules quite clearly state that in the situation a ban is perfectly allowable (in fact Graeme Smith is currently serving a similar ban and the SA Board haven't complained)

In that case, they are therefore refusing to accept the rules, is it that hard to understand or will you now make a similar post to your last few?

 

[Pratters]

By challenging a ban it simply means they think the laws have not been properly enacted.

So its not failure to accept rules as if a country stops accepting rules, why will the ICC allow those teams as then there would be utter chaos.

 

[marc71178]

The laws are clear though.

They have questioned his ban as being agianst the very rules that say that he can be banned for it, how is that anything except not accepting the rules?

 

[Pratters]

The laws are clear though.

They have questioned his ban as being agianst the very rules that say that he can be banned for it, how is that anything except not accepting the rules?

Rule implementatins have been questioned before and match bans reduced.

would the rules be changed based on this? No

So its qestioning the implementation rather than the rules. Do you really think the ICC will make a ruling which is not within the rules or if the Indian board believes the ICC would?