Gautam Gambhir: The ICC bungles yet again…

I do not know how they do it. But they do!

They did it in the Australia-India Sydney Test in 2008 when the ICC bungled once and then again and then some more! Mike Proctor is believed to have pleaded with the ICC to appoint someone more capable to hear the Harbhajan Singh “Monkeygate” case. The ICC insisted that they needed the issue dealt with speedily. Good motives. However, they forced Proctor, a man who was incompetent in matters legal, to handle a hot potato. However, instead of a potato the ICC handed the man a grenade. He promptly blew it up and with it, himself too!

The poor man was a sacrificial lamb. Another lamb in a string of broken bodies. He quietly joined the ranks of the dispensable, like Mike Denness, Darryl Hair, Steve Bucknor and many others before him!

And now, in a bid to rush through a decision process on Gautam Gambhir, the ICC may have created another lamb for their slaughter-queue!

Personally, I do feel that Gambhir was denied natural justice in his appeal.

Albie Sachs passed his judgement without once talking to Gambhir! Surely, this just cannot be right although Albie Sachs says in his ruling that a conversation would not have had any impact on his appeal decision given that there were no significant “important questions of fact are in dispute” and given the “desirability of speedy resolution”.

Question: Who desired a speedy resolution?

The appellant? The BCCI? Cricket Australia? The ICC? The Australian cricket players who wanted Gambhir rubbed out of the game?

My view is that “Natural Justice” affords only Gambhir the maximal right to a speedy (or otherwise) resolution. Every other stakeholder has, at best, a passing interest in the timeliness of the resolution.

What is important is that justice is seen to be served and not quite the time it takes for it to be served.

It would seem that, in his haste, Sachs has erred and with him, his masters at the ICC, who — it can be inferred — sought a speedy resolution.

I can imagine that the BCCI would be upset at this — they are — and would pick holes in the technicalities of the appeal ruling rather than the actual ruling itself!

The ruling itself was probably right! Who knows?

I am a firm believer in the “you do the crime, you serve the time” principle. In that sense, I do believe that Gambhir has to take his ‘penalty’ on the chin. However, a fair process would afford any person the right to Natural Justice. If I were Gambhir, I would be upset mainly because I would have cause to feel that Natural Justice was denied in the appeals process.

There are a few reasons for this and I explore these below.

The main body of the appeal was built around the “disproportionate nature of the penalty imposed”, particularly bearing in mind the provocation to which Gambhir had been subjected.

Although Albie Sachs did refer to the actual offence in terms that could be interpreted as grounds for leniency, Gambhir wasn’t allowed the opportunity of a full exploration of the issues around that finding of Sachs.

Let us examine what Sachs wrote. He says: “I am prepared to accept that he had been the victim of prolonged and persistent verbal abuse by members of the Australian team, culminating in a moment of anger that led to his unfortunate lapse. I would add in his favour that the manner in which Shane Watson had raised an arm as he ran past for the first run, could have been taken by him as a mocking gesture, and thereby could have served as the last provocative straw. Furthermore, I accept, as the umpires did, that the actual contact was not serious. “

Few issues stick out in these statements by Sachs:

  • Sachs calls the elbow an “unfortunate lapse” which could imply that, in his view, there was no pre-meditation — surely, there is immediately a case for leniency there!
  • Sachs concludes that, “Shane Watson had raised an arm as he ran past for the first run, could have been taken by him as a mocking”. Now that is Albie Sachs’ assumption or conclusion of Gambhir’s mental state and hence, Gambhir’s conclusions at that time! In other words, Sachs has concluded that Gambhir thought Watson was mocking him by raising his arm! How could Sachs be so sure? Did he ask Gambhir? Did Sachs seek to verify if indeed Gambhir saw that as “mocking”? No, he did not. Indeed, Gambhir could make a case that that he did not quite see the ‘Watson raised arm’ tactic as ‘mocking’ but rather an attempt by Watson to elbow Gambhir on his first run, which the batsman cleverly avoided. Gambhir could then have gone on to quite conceivably make a claim that on his way back for the second run, his own elbow-thrust-out action was indeed a ‘reflex’ (consistent with his “guilty as charged but not deliberate” plea) to ensure that he doesn’t get elbowed once again by Watson while on his second run! This is all conjecture. But heck! Sachs’s conclusion was also purely conjectural and was based on the realm of the hypothetical and second-guessing! All I am saying is that Sachs has rushed to a conclusion without providing Gambhir an opportunity to put forth his case in the appeal.

Sachs then goes on to say “The points he wishes to make have already been made, and for purposes of this appeal I fully accept their veracity.”

This is not quite true. It is, indeed, factually incorrect. The BCCI had made requests “for certain documents or recordings to be given.” These recordings are presumably voice recordings of the preceding play.

Sachs then enters territory that is most dangerous, in my view. He says, “In this context, further delay would leave him (and the selectors, and the public) in the unenviable position of not knowing where he stood in relation to the upcoming Test match, without any corresponding benefit as far as the appeal is concerned.”

Albie Sachs has left himself completely open to inspection, analysis, question and ridicule here.

It is better to delay justice but reach the right decision after considering the appeal in all its fullness than rush to a final judgement in a bid to second-guess the needs of Gambhir, the Indian selectors and the viewing public on the outcome of Gambhir’s appeal ruling.

Of all the statements in his ruling, I find this statement reproduced above to be the most ludicrous. Sachs cannot and should not wear the shoes of either the Indian team selectors or the viewing public.

He has.

Most importantly, however, unlike the hearing in the presence of Chris Broad, the ICC Appeals process does afford a player the natural right to legal representation. This right was denied by Albie Sachs, who, in a hurry to afford clarity to the Indian selectors and viewing public rushed through a somewhat botched process to arrive at a hasty judgement, in my view.

The judgement may be correct. However, with the process being ordinary at best and a mockery at worst, I feel that Albie Sachs and the ICC have left themselves wide open for a overturning of this ruling on grounds of “technical irregularities”.

As I said before, I do not have a problem with the outcome, but if I were Gambhir I would have every right — on several counts — to feel aggrieved that natural justice was thoroughly denied.

The BCCI has made a legitimate complaint to the ICC. The BCCI has said, in a letter to the ICC, “The order has been passed without affording the player an opportunity of personal hearing, legal representation and without acceding to his request for certain documents or recordings to be given to him and also denying him any extension of time.”

I am not sure what can and will happen from here on in. The ICC will not — and should not — allow a re-appeal. The process does not allow for that. It is likely that the ICC Executive Board will need to step in here and do something in a hurry.

All this convinces me, if I needed convincing in the first place, is that the ICC, as it stands, is incapable of running the game of cricket. From their handling of sensitive issues to the running of major events like the World Cup, the ICC has shown itself to be a somewhat incompetent organisation.

In my view, the ICC has botched one issue too many and it would seem to me that the time is appropriate to do something about it. That time is now.

— Mohan

60 responses to “Gautam Gambhir: The ICC bungles yet again…

  1. chris hutchinson


    I take all of your points. But it appears to me that when you get a decision you dont agree with then it’s just plain wrong.

    As with Sydney, the appeal has been heard by a “legal eagle”.

    I liken this situation to Lillee and Miandad.

    The bottom line is he had to go and if India doesnt accept it then it “ain’t playing fair”.

  2. @chris


    I rest my case.

  3. This is a terrific article. I did not see the ruling how you did perhaps because I made up my mind that Gambir was guilty and deserved it. But I see it now. Hats off to you for your diligence and patience. BCCI should hire you! And after reading your article, I am convinced that natural justice was denied in this case to Mr Gambir.

  4. Hi Mohankaus,

    I am bit concerned that in recent times our discipline record has been very poor. And when we have lost appeals, the BCCI has got involved and been very heavy handed.

    I think the other teams must look at us as poor sports. The other teams seem to accept the umpire’s opinion. We seem to argue if things don’t go our way.

    What are your thoughts?

  5. @Van

    So you think Murali and Sri Lanka copped theirs on the chin? You think Pakistan copped the Oval decision on the chin? Just seeking clarifications.

    An appeal of a Level 2 decision is a players right. If other teams think that that makes India look like “poor sports”, then they have a problem. If pain persists, perhaps the team doctor will prescribe a pain killer! And in an appeal, the appellant has a right to natural justice. These are the basic principles at play here. They were at play in “Monkeygate” too. Everything else — financial muscle power, grandstanding, etc — is secondary and for Conn and Lalor to whine about.

  6. BTW, for the record (again), I do believe Gambhir should cop a penalty — whatever it is. But just as a rapist who is convicted has the right to an appeal, so also a player who will carry this blot through his career. My view, based on Sachs’ report — and I am happy to be proved wrong — is that that basic right was denied to Gambhir.

    Urgency was not the issue here. Probity was. And it was, I feel, compromised.

  7. @Monhank,

    I feel that the Oval decision should be a forfeit as Pakistan refused to keep playing. Not sure about Murali.

    The comments I have been receiving say that the appeal is only about delaying justice so he can play against the Aussies. It does look a bit like that doesn’t it?


  8. Cynical approaches are part of the game. To any Aussie supporter that says that the appeal was a “delaying tactic”, gently remove the halo from their heads and say that “getting him a ban was just as cynical an approach by the Australians who were (a) aware of his short-fuse and (b) scared of his batting prowess”. Ask them to read Mike Hussey! And then say to them politely that an appeal is every players’ right.

  9. Thanks Monkankus,

    I tried that, but they say because he pleaded guilty the Aussies are not at fault.

  10. Van

    He appealed the “severity” of the penalty. That is totally legal, allowed and above board. Give your Aussie friends a pain killer 🙂

  11. theblackirishman

    I found it quite staggering that Mike Hussey is “frustrated with the delays (to the ban) as Gambhir is batting so well” !

    Have even pretentions so some degree of sportsmanship gone out of fashion?

    Is this the next step in New Age Cricket? Hire a team of Psyco legal eagles to help root out the best opposition players out of the game – one way or another??


  12. This is a terrific article Mohan. Totally analytical and completely sharp. Well done. You have a way with words and crispness.

    I do agree with you that the ICC is trying its best to get stuck into India. However, given their general overall ineptitude, all grenades are bombing in their own hands. This is another example.

    India will stand for “what is right”. Once again, the whole world will claim that BCCI is flexing its muscles. It is their loss really.

    The sooner everyone realises that the ICC is a piss-weak organisation, the better it will be for everyone. Just look at how the BCCI conceived and conducted the IPL. And compare that with that Stanford “wives for the Boys” nonsense that the ECB signed up to. The ICC should shake off its ECB influence for cricket to move forward in a new millennium.

  13. This is how I responded to Suresh Menon’s article on CricInfo:

    My response:

    I believe you are wrong here Suresh. This is not a case of the BCCI flexing its muscles, but one of “natural justice” being available to everyone. Gambhir had the right to appeal the severity of his penalty. He did. Justice Sachs denied him natural justice by denying him legal representation, which is Gambhir’s right in the appeals process. The BCCI is right to complain about the lack of process cleanliness in this case. I have written at length about these views of mine over here.

    I am a fan of the “do the crime then do the time” school of thought. However, in a humane society that affords the most heinous of serial rapists the chance of a fair hearing and an appeal, the least we can ask for is a fair hearing for Gambhir’s case. In the context of a fair appeal hearing, his priors are irrelevant.

    — Mohan

  14. “The sooner everyone realises that the ICC is a piss-weak organisation, the better it will be for everyone.”

    Could not agree more. Cricket Australia is probably even worse.

    How these groups have allowed one country to take the great game of cricket into such a diabolical mess is a testament to the spineless nature of them both.

  15. Paul

    Yours is an assertion. And it is crap. Substantiate. If not, shut up.

    I agree with the writer of this article. It is not an issue of whether or not Gambhir is guilty. That is not relevant. Nor are his prior misdemeanors.

    I have to ask myself if the lad was afforded natural justice. He was not. More power to BCCI if they have the balls to attack the ICC over this.

  16. I disagree, Mohankaus. You say that his priors are irrelevant. Remember this is not an appeal about the verdict, it is an appeal about the sentence. He is appealing the severity of the sentence. Surely the fact that the lad has ‘priors’ is highly relevant to his sentencing as provide at least some indication of the effectiveness of the punishment and of how genuine his contrition is.

    If there is a problem with the appeals mechanism — and it seems as though it could do with some clarification — then by all means the BCCI should take it up with Dubai and get it clearly established. There is little benefit in threatening to pick Gambhir in spite of the finding, other than perpetuating the petulance of the BCCI.

    This seems to be the standard response of the BCCI when there is a finding they don’t like, and it is increasingly shrill. What have they done to try and fix these problems?

    I would also be interested to hear what the players think of it — not the suspensions as such, but the policy of the BCCI actively flouting central governance of world cricket. Do you really think that Dhoni’s response would be to say, “stuff what the judge has said, let’s pick Gambhir anyway ..?”

  17. Ok I just went and read cricinfo article. I agree with this point:
    “If the BCCI is genuinely concerned about the Code of Conduct, it should take it up with the ICC at the right forum and not react every time an Indian is hauled up.”

  18. Jose, i think it’s not about creating a new rule. But applying the existing rules equally to all the players. Just compare the fines imposed on Zaheer Khan (80% of match fee) and Shane Watson (a symbolic 1 Rupee).

  19. Brother Monk you are the thinking man’s commentator. You got that hot pototo and stuck it right up the ICC’s sacrificial lamb type bottom ya?
    You are the guru of the metaphor and the high priest of the cliche.
    Spellen not so good thow. I think that other anti Indian dacoit name is Procter.

    “Proctor, a man who was incompetent in matters legal, to handle a hot potato. However, instead of a potato the ICC handed the man a grenade. He promptly blew it up and with it, himself too!

    The poor man was a sacrificial lamb. Another lamb in a string of broken bodies. He quietly joined the ranks of the dispensable, like Mike Denness, Darryl Hair, Steve Bucknor and many others before him!”

  20. “ICC may have created another lamb for their slaughter-queue!”

    another classic monk man …

  21. “Personally, I do feel that Gambhir was denied natural justice in his appeal.”

    Guru do not hide behind your mask. Tell us what YOU think we don’t care for these personals and I’s we want the blushing Monkman to cut the humility

  22. Lets face it. Incidents like this, and the fact thatMichel Johnson’s abuses to Laxman on the final day of third Test have gone unpunished show the ‘aukaat’ (status) of Indian cricketers and the BCCI in the international cricketing world.
    In spite of providing upto 70% of finances for running the game, an Indian player does not even get his appeal heard seriously, whereas an Aussie gets away in the same match with violating rules and being caught and talked about publicly on his behavior.
    All indians, lets drop all pretensions of being IMPORTANT in the cricketing world.
    Fact is, no umpire or match referee has the courage to pull up an Aussie.

  23. Chris Broad has been made to look like an ass by the South African Judge Albie Sachs.

    Chris did nothing about Simon Katich, did more or less nothing about Shane Watson. In his ruling Albie Sachs says that the indians were subject to “inordinate verbal provocation”. How can a match referee say he did his job when practically nothing has been done about the issues during the test.

    The judge also says “Constant verbal assaults are also unbecoming, and also bring the game into disrepute”. Chris Broad…asleep at the wheel?

    There is also a veiled threat to the referee and the umpires here…To my mind, these ‘verbals’ as they are euphemistically called, whether they involve swearing or not, provide a kind of tension and aggression inconsistent with the spirit of cricket. Yet even if a case can be made out that the time has come to consider whether sledging has any place in cricket at all…

    The appeal process is Gambhir’s right and justice was denied. I guess the judge is saying WHATEVER the circumstances, provacation, mitigating factors…Physical contact (deliberate) has no place in the game (this is not the first time that Gambhir was pulled up for this.

    Katich has been hauled up before…remember Trent Bridge 2006…Broad? or are you asleep again? Gone are the days when being a match referee was a good retirement perk Chris Board…if the kitchen is getting too hot…get the heck out mate

    My only message to the Indians are now get the daggers out…go for the jugular…invoke all the things that you need to invoke to get the Auzies rattled…”no holds barred”…beat them at their own dirty game…finally remember the old sick adage…what happens on the field stays on the field. Ha!

  24. brilliant article Mohan… Thanks much!!


  25. Bala Balachandran


    Brilliant analysis of the paralysis of the decision making process by ICC judge. In today’s article in The Age, Ponting has mentioned how to tackle the issue if Dhoni hands him the list of players with Gautam in it and yet another interesting drama ahead this afternoon in Nagpur. Will wait and see how it unfolds !!!


    @ Mohan,

    Yes Mohan, “heard”. Your semantics come to the fore in your hour of need.

    What is amazing in this circumstance, both amazing from yourself, Mr Enfield and a significant % of these bloggers is that Gambhir has been stitched up and denied natural justice.

    Again, it seems that “process” as agreed to by the BCCI needn’t be followed.

    Look! Watson provoked Gambhir, Gambhir responded. Gambhir knows the first rule that should have determined his actions.

    Pull out Malcolm Conn’s response today and tear it apart.

    As pointed out by this blogger, the real “evil” in this matter will be there for all to see.

    Mohan, it hasnt taken a week.

    India pats itself on the back for it’s new aggression and standing up to the bully boys from Australia.

    You have nowhere to go! But I am sure you will think of something.

  27. Let me see if I understand the situation correctly by using a simple analogy.

    Suppose your average nightclubber was charged with assault, after, say a confrontation with a bouncer of a Friday night.

    If he (or she) was unhappy with the verdict, he would have every right to appeal it. Correct?

    When the matter comes up for an appeal hearing, he would have every expectation that he be represented, either in person accompanied by legal counsel or at the very least by counsel.

    If this due process is followed, he should have no issues in accepting whatever decision was handed down.

    If however, the be-wigged one decided the appeal based on the evidence of the Security Camera, without HEARING what the appelant had to say in defence, would he have the right to be aggrieved?

    Would he be justified in calling it a kangaroo court?

  28. @chris

    I have no “hour of need”. What I do need is transparency, equity and natural justice. All denied in this case.

    Gambhir was stitched up by the Aussies who are all laughing now that he has been chopped on the neck. It is cynical, but acceptable within the framework of sorry gamesemanship that the ICC has an amazing tolerance for. Gambhir was a tool for falling for it. But he was denied natural justice, in my view.

    The ‘process’ wasn’t followed. BCCI has reason to be upset. Sachs was more interested in delivering clarity to Indian selectors than he was in natural justice!

    One day, an Australian is going to cop a bat on his mouth. The ICC’s tolerance for white line fever will be woken up then.

    I don’t need to pull Conn’s article apart. Conn, however, would be welcome to pull apart my article. It is up there for all to see. Thus far, I haven’t seen ANY significant objections to what I have written.

    You end with, “You have nowhere to go! But I am sure you will think of something.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. My views are up here for all to see and I am not going anywhere in a tearing hurry. Unless my points are substantially negated — not through random assertions, but by solid fact and serious opinions — I hold on to my opinions. I am happy to change my views, if need be. Up until now I haven’t been swayed by counter arguments.

    Gambhir he fell on his own sword thanks to cynical gamesmanship from the Aussies who wanted him rubbed out. Shame on the Aussies. But shame on Gambhir too. But ultimately, Gambhir was denied natural justice.

    Them’s my views.

  29. Peter Della Penna

    First off, the writer needs to start analyzing things in context instead of immediately comparing things on the cricket field to rape and murder at the first possible opportunity.

    He starts off by complaining about Mike Proctor adjudicating the process in Sydney, rightfully claiming that he was not qualified to oversee the process. Instead of waiting a month to bring in justice Hansen like in Sydney, justice Sachs rules over the case right, but now you don’t like the way he rules, regardless of the fact that he is fully qualified.

    Claims also made among the commenters that prior incidents are irrelevant are absolutely ridiculous. In the NFL, a first positive test for a banned substance results in a four game suspension, while a second test results in a year long suspension. Prior records are completely relevant as they indicate whether or not there is a pattern of unsatisfactory behaviour. That is exactly why Harbhajan was given a ban last year, because it was not the first time he was hauled before a tribunal, but the incidents kept piling up.

    In the Harbhajan case, everyone hid behind the excuse that there was no audio evidence to confirm what he did or didn’t say and so he shouldn’t be banned. Well in this case there is evidence for all to see what Gambhir did, so there is nowhere for him to hide.

  30. @Peter Della

    All I can conclude from your comment is that you have an inability to comprehend!

    First, the principles of natural justice are as applicable to rape, robbers and suicide bombers as they are to supposed thugs on the cricket field. Tell me why the same rules are not applicable and then I will listen.

    Second, not every competent person is correct. I have no problems with Albie Sachs’s credibility or indeed, his ruling. Read my post again and again if you have problems comprehending. His process was flawed. Tell me why his process was correct and then I will listen.

    Your last paragraph convinces me that you need to read the post again. This post has nothing to do with the irrefutable evidence that was presented. It was to do with the right of appeal. Again, I invite you to read carefully! You haven’t.

    Finally, please don’t make random and unqualified assertions unless that is all you are interested in. Hand waves and assertions are for children. Support your assertions with solid arguments and fact.

    If not, I welcome you to just read!

    — Mohan

  31. Mohan:

    I thought you were an IT professional; but didn’t know you had legal background as well. Very well written piece and cannot be disputed. All those who write against waht you say forget the basic theme of your piece – forget what Gambhir did or didn’t; natural course of justice was not followed. Why do we have appeal courts with their own set of judges and staff and conduct trials if all thejudge has to do is to read the previous judgment and give his verdict. None of us if we follow what happened here for aan appeal against an employee will keep ‘our’ jobs if it goes to the Employment Court. This not about BCCI, India, Financial muscle etc. against ICC – this is purely for the umpteenth time not following natural course of justice – period.

  32. And lets not forget Team India’s appalling discipline record!

  33. BCCI is playing catch up cricket because it suits them–to be shown as the custodian of anything in Indian cricket–good and bad–just for cheap publicity and drum up the emotions of ignorant supporters

    The Judge’s report (6) clearly states that on his appointment , he informed everyone that he would pass judgement on the basis of written submissions, Video evidence submitted and the Match referee’s inial judgement. Subsequently, he received a report from Gambhir. Everything that the Judge has done is within the rules laid down.

    Why didn’t BCCI object initially to these conditions? They could have raised this with ICC and changed the format in such a way that any delay would have allowed Gambhir to play in the Nagpur test.

    Aussie players and officials have absolutely NOTHING to do with the current developments. It is ALL the fault of Gambhir initially and that of BCCI officials subsequently.have
    Why did they wait for adverse finding before jumping up and down?

    None of the bloggers wrote anything about the Judge’s set condtitions —before his judgement–with which he said he would do his job!!

    Gambhir lied to everyone at the end of the game by saying that his contact was NOT intententional–yet he pleaded guily at the hearing!!!!

    This shows that Gambhir is not a reliable witness!!!!

    All this reference to natural justice has no value or merit–whichever way one looks at objectively.

    As Mohan accepts, Gambhir has done the crime, admitted to it and hence has to do the time.

    Unfortunately–for India and her fans–he did it at the wrong time and at the wrong place!!!

    My sincere hope is that his next and similiar offence by him gets him ONE year of sabattical leave!!!!

  34. Pingback: India Vs Australia :: Test 4 :: Nagpur :: Preview « i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

  35. @Steve

    Ass I said in the other post, “India’s appalling discipline record” JUST points to one thing. They are not as clever as Australia in hiding below the radar! NOTHING ELSE.

    Australia is the only team that has had its bum rapped by two independent judges — Hansen and Sachs. And yet, its captain is in denial.

  36. India are learning the hard way that money doesn’t buy you respect

  37. Sampath:

    You are in hand-wave territory in the first paragraph. Not a single one of your views there are backed by anything other than the wind that escapes your bottom! Sorry to be so direct, but that is how I read it.

    Two issues:

    (a) Any appeals process allows a right to legal representation. This one did not.

    (b) Why did Sachs rush? Did Gambhir ask him to? Did the selectors ask him to?

    You show yourself in poor light by saying: “Gambhir lied to everyone at the end of the game by saying that his contact was NOT intententional–yet he pleaded guily at the hearing!!!!”

    Even murderers have admitted “guilt” of the action, but still pre-meditation is a stronger offence.

    Your knowledge of the law (or lack of it) was exposed by that weird statement.

    Indeed, Gambhir ought to be applauded for pleading guilty and hence, saving a lot of people a lot of time.

    Was he guilty of the elbow? Yes. Was it intentional? No! It is possible for both to be mutually exclusive!

    Think Sam think… Ooops! Sorry. I didn’t realise your challenges in this department.

    You then thunder mysteriously “This shows that Gambhir is not a reliable witness!!!!”

    So it is possible that a “criminal” can be a “witness” to his own crime in a court of law?

    You have NO IDEA, do you?

    But yet you continue to embarrass yourself in public. You must have a compelling need to do that!

    And your conclusion: “All this reference to natural justice has no value or merit–whichever way one looks at objectively.”



    Your long and thunderous post just convinces me that you need to let the air out.

    — Mohan

  38. @Frank

    Yes, it is a lesson Australia learned a long time back and yet, has failed to gain it! At least India’s money is gaining it respect! Saw how Hussey dumped the Western Warriors for Chennai?

  39. You are mistaking respect for mercenaries

  40. There is a correlation between being caught and committing the crime. Yes, it is not a perfect correlation, but it is a strong one. With all the cameras on today’s players I find your assertion hard to fathom.

    Jeepers, I didn’t know that following the cricket required a law degree.

  41. Mohan,

    Your obsession with my bodily functions shows that you are running out of wind yourself!!

    You have not addressed my point re the conditions that Judge laid out and which were not questioned by BCCI or you.

    Now that you have gone for my bodily parts, let me remove the gloves and point out your racist mind

    Twice this week, you have asked for MORE ASIAN REFEREES!!!!

    This is nothing but blatant racist comment that one would expect the likes of regional and parochial leaders in India or the Hansons in Australia. Looks like you enjoy sleeping with the dogs and getting fleas!!

    What makes the Asian referees any different? More of a disciplinarians? What have wasim Raja, G Vishwanath, J Srinathm R Mahanama, R Madugale etc achieved so far?

    If Asians such disciplinarians , how come that there are murders and house burning everday in India and neighbouring Asian countries in the name of religion and language? How did gambhir learn to do elbow an opponent in a non-contact sport?

    How many of the politicians and industrialists are committing white collar crimes and getting away with it?

    It is you problem, living in a glass house and throwing stones at me!!!

  42. Peter Della Penna

    @ mohan ka

    You seem to love deflecting attention away from people who challenge your biased postings by making sarcastic comments at anyone who does not agree with your position.

    Once again I will point out that you are not looking at things in context. The context here is a cricket field and the actions that take place on it. This is not a rape trial. The rules and discipline that take place on a sports field are different than those outside it. For example, a bowler who bounces a cricket ball and hits a batsman in the head is commended for a well directed bouncer. A person who throws a cricket ball at someone’s head on a street and hits them could be charged with attempted murder. Obviously it is ridiculous to compare these two and it is equally ridiculous to compare Gambhir’s appeal to a rape trial and appeal.

    But for all the BCCI sycophants and Gambhir supporters who do follow this absurd line of thinking, let’s play on the slippery slope. Gang attacks and murders happen all the time in places like New York City. By your logic, if a Blood told a Cryp that his mother was a whore, and the Cryp shoots the Blood because the Blood provoked him and the Cryp gets thrown in jail for 10 years for attempted murder, the Blood should also be in jail for 10 years for provoking the Cryp to shoot off his gun.

    What I have just written is the way many Indian supporters have used as their line of argument. It’s time for Gambhir and the BCCI to stop pointing fingers at everyone else and for the fans to stop whooping about Watson, Katich, Johnson and stop blaming the judge for judging against him. Instead of printing snippets of Judge Sachs’ judgement that make yourself look smart, why haven’t you printed the entire transcript?
    This way people can decide for themselves.

  43. @Sam

    If you wanted an explanation for why I said what I did about Asian Referees, I’d have told you. Instead you second guessed and made a total ass of yourself again!

  44. @Peter

    My context here is the law and natural justice. I don’t care about the Match Referee’s hearing. I care about natural justice in an Appeal that is conducted by a legal person.

    I don’t need to provide a printout of the transcript. I provided a link to it.

    Again, read.

    — Mohan

  45. Mohan,

    Be brave

    Do justice to your bravado

    What is preventing you from giving the reasons for asking for more Asian referees

    Using words like challenged, ass etc doesn’t bother me–I am not Gambhir to elbow you!!!!

    It shows that your arguments lack substance–and that you KNOW it

  46. @Sam

    Separate posting. Another day. Another time.

    Remember, this is a blog in which I write when I want to and what I want to. Similarly, the other contributors.

    Were you the one that thundered on the need for an article on Kumble and when one was written, did not comment on it?

    Wait Sam. Wait. I’ll do it in my time. Not yours.

  47. Mohan,

    I didn’t know that you were expecting my humble reaction to your take on Kumble

    Thousand apologies!!

    It is obvious that for your blog on Asian Referees, you want have it vetted by legal eagles in India or more preferably from Mr Hansen from NZ, who still has got vague memories of the under arm incident !!!!!!!–as you do not trust the ones from South Africa!!!!

  48. sampath

    you are an silly man. you keep raking up house burnings, religion and language at the drop of a hat. if that is the case, should we be calling australians convicts? wake up and smell the roses you loser. keep things on the ground. take your hate elsewhere. you are a man with a chip on your shoulder and a serious psychological problem.

  49. @Sam

    Are you asking me or telling me? If it is the latter, you are on your own.

    On Kumble, I have no worries with what you do with your time. It is you that has a demonstrated an open interest in my time.

    However, if you must know, there are quite a few people who emailed me and requested me not to interact with an “impolite loser” referring to the Kumble thing that you thundered on about.

  50. Mohan

    Leave Sampath alone – you know of the saying – Never argue with a fool – onlookers may not know the difference’ – best way to treat Sampath is ignore him and he will move away from this blog – we don’t need psychos with a bee on their bonnet to infiltrate this vibrant site.
    BTW, India has won the toss and that’s good news to start with.

  51. Srinivas,

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

  52. Pingback: i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

  53. Pingback: India Vs Australia :: Test 4 :: Nagpur :: Day-1 « i3j3Cricket :: A blog for fans of Indian cricket…

  54. @Sampath

    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.

  55. @Frank

    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.

  56. Hi 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.

  57. @Scorpicity

    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.


  58. Pingback: India Vs Australia :: Test 4 :: Nagpur :: Day-1 |

  59. Cheers Mohan

    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

  60. I believe the right decision was given. Read my legal analysis of why this is so at

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s