The Anglo-Saxon dominated ICC

[Plum]

It was the Imperial Cricket Conference. Australia and England had a veto. They ran Cricket in their own interests. India, Pakistan, New Zealand, West Indies were all minions to amuse them. What they said was law. What brought them benefit was right.

Nobody in England and australia then - players, commentators, journalists, writers, administrators - ever spoke out against their arrogance.

Then, things changed. Dalmia brought money to BCCI and ICC. And BCCI began putting the boot on the other foot. Now, these same imperialists who had no problem under England and Australia's dictatorial regime are shouting hoarse about BCCI domination.

But the even more amazing part of this is that - Does BCCI really dominate ICC?

Look at player punishments - it is well known that Asian players cop more punishments for the same, or even lesser offences that a White player or even any player playing for England or Australia, does.

There are hundreds of examples but still White man apologists continue to turn a blind eye and for reasons best known to themselves, deny that this happens, and pretend ignorance.
This thread is to demolish the ignorance of such people.

The recently concluded Nottingham test itself has two examples of English players getting away with awful behaviour and Indian players being punished more for far less.
Case 1 - Ian Bell

Ian Bell is a good batsman. Thats all he is. He is not an umpire. He is not a match referee. He is not the sole authority on the cricket field. At some point yesterday he decided he was all of these things. He assumed that the ball was dead. Him and him alone. His batting partner, Eoin Morgan didn't. The bowler didn't. The fielder who had thrown the ball in didn't. And the umpires didn't. Yet in a supreme display of arrogance, Bell trotted over to his batting partner, who looked most uncomfortable about the whole affair since he had just put his bat in the crease after attempting to warn Bell, and knew something unfortunate was about to occur.

Make no mistake, the error was Bell's and Bell's alone, nothing but sheer stupidity. But it gets worse from here. Ignore the indignation from the English, who almost drowned twitter out with calls for Dhoni's head for, well, doing the correct thing. As the umpires asked Dhoni if he wanted to uphold the appeal, they also turned to the English batsmen and asked them to wait on the field until a decision had been made. Bell's arrogance took to the fore again and he marched off, seemingly as oblivious to their request as he seemed to the entire run out fiasco. Note that even at that point the umpires had still not called Tea, it was Bell who took it upon himself to declare the session over. Bell was actually stopped just before he left the ground to his obvious disgust by the fourth umpire, who politely reminded him that the session had not in fact officially ended.

For such blatant disregard to an umpire's authority, a player has already been penalized in this test, too bad he isn't English though, because they are praised for this sort of behavior.

Case 2 - Graeme Swann

Already in this test we've seen Graeme Swann kick the stumps in disgust at his own performance, and despite being his second offence in under three months, escape with a reprimand. "Look here you jolly old fellow, we love your witty banter on twitter, but you can't go around kicking the stumps when you feel like it. Just quickly apologize for it and we'll sweep it under the carpet."


Case 3 = Stuart Broad

The most petulant and a serial offender in the English side, much like his father before him, and rewarded with T20 captaincy - this is the same bowler who is the only international cricketer to have conceded 6 sixes in an over in a T20 match - Stuart Broad, took it upon himself to step into his father's shoes and check if VVS Laxman had applied Vaseline to his bat. The English seem to think this sort of behavior is amusing, its a bit like throwing jelly beans on the pitch, its all in good fun when you're not at the receiving end. Insinuate that an Englishman might be a cheat and you'll get the response the Pakistani team received after their counter accusations during the spot fixing brouhaha.



Case 4 - Strauss and Flower

Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower chose to approach Dhoni during the Tea interval and ask him to reconsider his appeal. This has been described as "most unorthodox" but the more simple way of describing it is that it was way out of line. You cannot go to the opposition and ask them to play in a manner that suits your players after your very players are solely responsible for an incident because of their stupidity, and especially not after the mob you're leading onto the field has already acted so disgracefully. The trouble is, nobody seems to be telling England that they're behaving terribly. Oh no, quite the opposite.

[Plum]

The umpires and the Indian Team deserve praise. Don't discount the role of the umpires here, they could have chosen to act as heavy handed as Daryl Hair did at the Oval during Inzimam's protest and taken the incident to a whole different level. Madugalle's lenient reprimand to Swann and his overlooking Broad's distasteful accusation, doesn't deserve credit. And England's conduct definitely does not either. The "Great Spirit of Cricket" shouldn't win any accolades today, it was in fact insulted because it asks players to play fair, within the rules and to respect umpires. But more so because it promotes equality and equal treatment to players, and by all indications from the ICC's statement, equality seems to be used rather judiciously, and certainly selectively.

All the above from Cricket blogger achettup who blogs here:
http://www.boredcricketcrazyindians.com/

[Plum]

Shame on ICC and England Cricket and Indian Apologists of England and White Man who turn a blind eye to such shenaignans from England Cricket Team,a nd innocently say "I dont remember the ICC being biased in favour of England"

[kid-glove]

"I dont remember the ICC being biased in favour of England"
- You will find no one says that here or elsewhere. Esp. in Twitter, it's full blown vitriol on ECB & England.

[Plum]

There are people who say that and they know who they are :)

[Plum]

Anyway, this thread will be the repository for such instances of bias in ICC. Because, someone needs to propogate the truth

[kid-glove]

AFAIK, P_R's stance (to support English cricket team) was more in cricketing terms.

[sathya_1979]

re-use repository? Koot Koot! Let me dig in more instances and record here

[Plum]

Off my head, I can recall Gambhir being punished for elbowing Watson, but the same Watson being let off with milder punishment for doing the same to Suleiman Benn. Haddin and Johnson were also involved in unsavoury incidents in that match but didnt receive a rap. Sathya, if possible, google this and link here. It was the 2009 WI tour of Australia

2. Ricky Ponting elbowed Mohd Asif but Asif was warned for "violating Ponting's personal space" :lol:. The match referee, unsurprisingly, was BC Broad, father of the shameless offender, Stuart. I speculated at that time if Ricky cried out "bhagwan ke liye mujhe chhod do" to Asif. This was the Aus-Pak series in England in 2010

3. Countless instances of Ricky and Shane Warne intimidating umpires - what's more they are hailed has "hard but fair" play by even Indian fans of Warne. Ofcourse, Ponting doesnt get such favours from indian fans, needless to say.

[sathya_1979]

Samples:

1) 1999 India tour of Aus a.k.a disaster - Srinath hit Pricky's helmet with a bouncer and immediately apologized. Pricky gave a mouthful to him.
2) 2001 Mike Denness - enuf said
3) Sachin of all players was accused of ball tampering when he was cleaning the dirt in 2001. NZ's Craig Mcmillan did the same,on the same day in a match vs Aus. No punishment
4) When Imran, Wasim and Sarfraz invented and mastered reverse swing, Eng whined that they are tampering the ball. 2005 ashes???????? Ring any bell, now it is an ART (fart actually)
5) 2001-02 Eng Tour of India - Negative bowling by Giles vs Sachin - Spirit of cricket - My foot

More to continue

[MADDY]

AFAIK, P_R's stance (to support English cricket team) was more in cricketing terms.

yeah, im still a fan of English cricket.....absolutely impressed the way they thrashed Australia and now India(though it is personally painful).......

but yeah, referees are constantly showing favor for white men and against brown men during disciplinary hearings.......and ICC members are constantly having inferiority complex and acquired image of helplessness against the beastly Indian cricket, which is fuelling lot of anti-india sentiments.........the governing body itself isnt balanced and biased, which is not a good sign for the game....

this is the staff list of ICC -- http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc/about_the_organisation/staff.php
this is the match officials list of ICC -- http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc/match_officials/overview.php
this is the constitution of ICC which explains the organizational structure and role of each position and entities - http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_0DE4A511BFC4D86810C333CA12DBECFE_1288260213828 _45.pdf

btw, found this -- MCC to act as guardian of the rules and mentor of the spirit of the game. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marylebone_Cricket_Club)

[Plum]

modhalla Dave Richardson-ai thookaNum. It is not easy. He is a lawyer who will fight back. Chanakyan strategies will have to be employed. Honey Trap should be employed if he has that weakness.

Step by step, the members with anglo-saxon agenda should be removed. Since I believe in eye-for-eye in this particular case, we must infiltrate our most bigoted asians in those roles. So that for atleast a few years, the boot will be on the other foot. When the cycle ends, they'll come back to power and do the same to us - but that is ok, even if we are nice now, they'll humiliate us when they come back to power.

[Cinemarasigan]

modhalla Dave Richardson-ai thookaNum. It is not easy. He is a lawyer who will fight back. Chanakyan strategies will have to be employed. Honey Trap should be employed if he has that weakness.

Step by step, the members with anglo-saxon agenda should be removed. Since I believe in eye-for-eye in this particular case, we must infiltrate our most bigoted asians in those roles. So that for atleast a few years, the boot will be on the other foot. When the cycle ends, they'll come back to power and do the same to us - but that is ok, even if we are nice now, they'll humiliate us when they come back to power.

Neenga thaan-ga 21st century Chanakyan... :)

[Plum]

Kartikeya Date again - clinical demolition of Flower's hypocrisy (http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-andrew-flower-would-not-have-done.html)
Why Andrew Flower Would Not Have Done What Dhoni Did In The Ian Bell Case



This question has continued to bug me. Why did England think it was right to ask Dhoni to reconsider an appeal which was fairly clearly within the rules? Why did Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss think that it was the right thing to do? Or were they going to do it simply because Bell was batting so well? Sportsmanship involves doing the right thing irrespective of the cost to one's interests, purely because it is the right thing to do. Surely, the sporting thing to do in the case of the Bell episode would have been for India to withdraw their appeal, then, for Bell to be declared retired Out by England for his tea time score. For if Bell admitted being "naive" or "stupid", what price did he pay for it?




Increasingly, Michael Vaughan's reading of the situation seemed to be the most plausible one. Bell and England "handled the situation" brilliantly to protect their own interests. Sportsmanship had nothing to do with it. Flower's nonsense (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=a07b7cf173b5e7a7813819b49b99c77a&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fcricketingview.blogspot.com%2F&v=1&libid=1312400348632&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.espncricinfo.com%2Fengland-v-india-2011%2Fcontent%2Fcurrent%2Fstory%2F525741.html&title=A%20Cricketing%20View&txt=pivoted%20smartly&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13124003602061) about an "international incident" was only the last step in that performance.



3 years ago (http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvnz/engine/match/296907.html), Grant Elliot set off on an iffy run in an ODI against England at the Oval. Due to various factors, such as where the ball went, where Sidebottom's normal follow through ended up, and what line the non-striker was running, Elliot collided with the bowler. England claimed the run out (the fielder was Ian Bell), and Elliot was given Out. As per the law, it was judged by the Umpires that the wicket had been put down fairly. This is not just my interpretation, this is what the law actually says. Law 38 (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-38-run-out,64,AR.html) says that the batsman shall be out if "his wicket is fairly put down by the action of a fielder". Paul Collingwood, then England's captain, declined to withdraw his appeal, and the decision stood. Later that day, Collingwood regretted (http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvnz/engine/match/296907.html) this decision, but explained it away as something that happened in the heat of the moment.

14 months later (http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2009/engine/match/415276.html), England were playing Sri Lanka at the Wanderers in Johannesburg in an ICC Champions Trophy game. This time, the Sri Lankan all-rounder Angelo Mathews collided with the bowler Graham Onions after he had turned for a second run. Unlike the episode at the Oval, where Sidebottom was trying to race to the ball when the collision occurred, in this case, Onions was nowhere near the ball. England claimed the ensuing run out, but Andrew Strauss withdrew his appeal.

In both instances, the collision was an accident. There was no suggestion that either bowler or batsman deliberately tried to get in each others way. As such, it would have been perfectly legitimate for the fielding side to have claimed the run out in both cases, because the wicket was put down "fairly". The fielding side did not cheat, because the bowler did not deliberately get in the batsman's way. Further, it can also be argued that since it is the batsman who is doing to running, he should watch where he is going. Typically, batsmen have a fairly good feel for where the bowler is when they are rushing for a quick run. But sometimes, accidents can happen. However, this is one of those instances in which claiming the dismissal did not "feel right".

Andrew Flower disagreed (http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2009/content/story/426829.html) with Strauss's decision to withdraw the appeal against Angelo Mathews (My thanks to Siddharth Monga of Cricinfo for reminding me of this example). "I would definitely have not recalled him," he said, "But Strauss is a good man and I trust him completely. He made his decision and I back him on that, I just wouldn't have done it myself. I would have sent the batsman on his way. He ran into the bowler. Simple deal."


<LI class="postbitlegacy postbitim postcontainer" id=post_720386>
So Flower's attitude to these things is clear. If the batsman makes a mistake, then he pays the price. Bell admitted that he made a mistake. So why didn't Flower want Bell to pay a price? Does Flower support India's decision to recall Bell? Surely, the whole point of sportsmanship, is that you do the right thing, irrespective of the consequences for your team. If Dhoni's decision was an example of sportsmanship, was Flower and Strauss's decision to ask Bell to resume his innings not unsporting? And it is not as though (http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2011/content/story/525741.html) Flower disagreed with the decision to ask Dhoni to withdraw the appeal.

To be fair though, England have been quite honest about their attitude - an attitude which involves doing whatever marginal thing it takes to win. Strauss stopped short of definitely agreeing with Dhoni's decision. His comment was as non-committal as he could get away with. As opposed the clear comments from Vaughan and Hussein (for example), that they would have appealed exactly as Dhoni did, Strauss hemmed and hawed and came out with "I would like to think so", when asked if he would also have withdrawn the appeal in similar circumstances.

England's role in the Ian Bell episode can only be described as a thoroughly unsporting, professional and sophisticated. They protected their interests single mindedly, the "right thing" be damned. The "Spirit of Cricket" such as it is, is little more than an empty rhetorical trope, just as (http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2011/08/being-world-number-1-involves-wanting.html) their standard ultra-conditional mea culpas are empty rhetorical tropes.

So how should India deal with England in the rest of this series? I hope they will stick to playing by their own standards and not sink to England's. I also hope they can match England's accuracy with the ball.

[Plum]

ICC's brazen bias in favour of England on player punishments for misbehaviour (http://cricsis.blogspot.com/2011/07/india-vs-rest-of-world.html)

Mishra (Case 6) and Kumar (Case 7) were fined 10% and 20% of their match fees respectively for breaching Article 2.1.3. The Article 2.1.3 includes (http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_C26C9D9E63C44CBA392505B49890B5AF_1285831265162 _312.pdf) (pdf):

"(a) excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision; (b) an obvious delay in resuming play or leaving the wicket; (c) shaking the head; (d) pointing or looking at the inside edge when given out lbw; (e) pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when caught behind; (f) snatching the cap from the Umpire; (g) requesting a referral to the TV Umpire (other than in the context of a legitimate request for a referral as may be permitted in such International Match); and (h) arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision. It shall not be a defence to any charge brought under this Article to show that the Umpire might have, or in fact did, get any decision wrong."

Given what Stuart Broad did on Day 5 of the 1st Test of this series at Lord's, I wonder why that was not classified in clauses (a) and (h) of the above-mentioned Article. Sitting on haunches after an appeal is turned down should easily classify as "excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision" and slipping in a word to the umpire at the end of that over / start of next over about that decision should classify as "arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision". Broad might want to argue that it was not an argument or a prolonged discussion, but if he is talking more than the umpire (for his lips seemed to move more than Billy Bowden's), it is "arguing"; and if that discussion continues at the end of the over, it is a "prolonged discussion".



But then he is Stuart Broad, son of Chris, our own James Christopher, innit? How can he be punished?


As per Article 7.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct (http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_C26C9D9E63C44CBA392505B49890B5AF_1285831265162 _312.pdf) (pdf), if a Level 1 Offence is committed for the second time within a span of 12 months, then the penalty shall be "the imposition of a fine of between 50-100% of the applicable Match Fee and/or two (2) Suspension Points."

Swann was charged of a Level 1 offence (Case 4) on 12th March 2011. Only 4 months and 18 days have passed since that occasion and Swann has been charged with another Level 1 offence (Case 8). So why was he just reprimanded and not fined 50% of his match fees, which is the minimum penalty to be imposed.


Yet another case of England players getting away. idhellAm sila pErukku kaNNukku theriyAdhu, therinjAlum carpet-ukku keezhE perukittu pOykittE iruppAnga,


And if my aforesaid argument of Broad's behaviour in the 1st Test holds good, then he too should have faced strict sanctions since he has already been pulled up and fined 50% of his match fees for a Level 2 offence on 1st July 2011, merely 29 days ago! Given that the earlier offence was Level 2, I daresay that he should have missed the current Test match at Nottingham!
And if he had missed Nottingham, India would probably have not lost the match. And the so-called depth might have been tested out. They made fun of our batting failure when we lost two of our important batsmen, and in return point that their bowling coped with Tremlett's loss. But that is one bowler. reNdu bowler pOyirundhA therinjirukkum. And there are valid reasons why Broad should not have played at all.

Over rate-lAm samacheer-A apply paNNA, Strauss also would not have played.

idhellAM BCCI power-la irukkarachEvE England pasanga thanga benefit-ku velaiya sAdhichukkurAnga. ivanga vERA off-field powerrukku vandhuttA...

cricket ini mella sAgum

[sathya_1979]

P (http://cricketnext.in.com/news/spotfixing-trial-aus-players-biggest-culprits/60735-13.html)lum, For your attention: Unsurprisingly no news in crookinfo regarding allegations against Aussies :lol2:

(http://cricketnext.in.com/news/spotfixing-trial-aus-players-biggest-culprits/60735-13.html)http://cricketnext.in.com/news/spotfixing-trial-aus-players-biggest-culprits/60735-13.html

[sathya_1979]

http://www.cricshop.com/Cricket-Leisurewear/England-Supporters-Leisurewear/England-Official-No-1-Test-Team-TShirt.aspx

W (http://www.cricshop.com/Cricket-Leisurewear/England-Supporters-Leisurewear/England-Official-No-1-Test-Team-TShirt.aspx)ere there any such sales when India were No. 1 in Tests for 2-3 years?

[P_R]

tonty pounds!!
thiruppoorla sagAya vilaikku yaaraavadhu senjA vaangalaam.

[Plum]

Sathya, avanga sondha kaasula shirt print paNNaRa varaikkum, this doesn't come under the scope of this thread. Icc kaasula paNNinA then we can protest.Namakku venumna ippo kooda worldcup t shirt paNNi viththukkalAmE? Who is stopping us? We should discuss more weighty transgressions by the anglo saxon folks in this thread

[P_R]

Clean chit to Aussie players (http://cricketnext.in.com/news/icc-gives-clean-chit-to-aussie-players/60770-13.html)

[P_R]

Icc kaasula paNNinA then we can protest.
Suffose, oru pEchchukku...if the idea is now mooted. That henceforth ICC will print shirts of the Waeld Nember one team. Then the fact that it was not mooted earlier when India was nember one and the initiative is started now, is protestable 'ngreega. Isit?

[Plum]

Icc not giving clean chit to wasim and waqar-A?:lol: avan fakistan player pathi solradhu correct but engal thanga aussie players paththi solradhu thappu :)Why is a icc entity in indecent haste to issue certificates to aussies?What is the reason quoted except emotional claims?Icc evlo kevalamaana anglo saxon spokespersonnu ippo kooda puriyalai?

[P_R]

"No evidence" appidingradhula enna emotion? That was all the ICC fellow said. SollappadaadhA?

Rubbishing claims ellAm Cricket Australia, Panding etc.

[Plum]

First line in that link""An icc acsu official rubbished claims...

[wizzy]

been there done that :lol: Rbk had a tee drum rolling India's no.1 ranking in tests

[P_R]

Flau, adheppadi 'evidence' illainnu sollalaam 'ngreengaLA.
Angry reaction, ennai eppadi sollalaam type 'outlandish' ellAm CA sonnadhu.
They ought not to be conflated.

[Plum]

Reported speech-la "rubbished"-nu solRAngaLE?I can imagine Sir Alan or whoever sneering, raising his eyebrows, and snobbishly clamping it down with "No evidence. Englishmen don't show their feelings in words, do they? They say it in tone and body language. Andha Associated press reporter adhai thaan "rubbished"-nu capture paNNadhA nAn feel paNdren.