Symonds & Gilchrist reported for dissent....suspend them

[London Dave]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/23/1077497514676.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/23/1077497514643.html

I haven't seen it on video, but I'll say this.

If Gilchrist and Symonds were having a whinge as reported in press, they both should get the rest of the ODI series off as a suspension, and a meaningful fine.

You have to respect the umps decision, right or wrong, walk off and if you want to chuck a fit, do it in the 'privacy' of the rooms. It's as simple as that. The ump decides when you are out or not. Whether you hit it or not, it was a fair catch or not is IRRELEVANT. You are out when the umpire says so. You are not out when he says so. I don't believe in fielding captains recalling players either. It is disrespectful to umpires positions. The ump may be a cheat (not that I'm accusing him of it in this instance), but that's tough.

It's one reason why I've never been a walker. Let the umpire decide. When the ump says out, that's it, you're gone, as Bill Lawry might say.

Gilchrist looks pretty stupid now imho, makes his decision to 'walk' look two faced. This dissent, if true, is as bad as Ranatungas display in a ODI v England at Adelaide a few years ago. If the powers in charge don't give them a substantial penalty, it's one more stab into crickets heart. We will end up like a baseball game, with coaches/managers and players screaming into umps faces etc.

[Donny]

I agree about accepting the ump's decision.

It's this simple: If the finger goes up, you go. No head shaking. No standing there with a look of disbelief. No crow noises.

If the umpy says, "Not out", you stay.

The whole Gilly walking situation was painted as 'good sportsmanship' but really had nothing to do with that, or honesty. Can you imagine a batsman, having been given out when he knows he didn't nick the ball, saying, "No, I didn't hit it, Mr Bucknor" and Bucknor saying, "Oh. Sorry Gilly. Not out"

There'll be no suspensions handed out to Symmo or Gilly but I understand Dave's point. The ascribed penalty is a fine. It's a level one offence and carries a half match fee fine. In their case, about $3000.

The penalty should be increased untill players get the message. I think if it was changed from a fine to suspension, players would take more notice. Fining a player who earns $2 mill a year (as Gilchrist does), $3000 just isn't much of a penalty.

As far as chucking a fit in the 'privacy' of the dressing rooms, this is no safeguard. Ask Boof Lehmann.
--------------------------------------------------

Symonds, Gilly charged

By Robert Craddock - Fox


SRI LANKAN umpire Peter Manuel has dramatically charged Australian players Adam Gilchrist and Andrew Symonds with dissent for the protests that prompted him to change his mind in Sunday's one-day game at Dambulla.

Gilchrist and Symonds will appear before match referee Mike Procter in Colombo tonight on misconduct charges for venting their frustration after Manuel's flawed lbw decision against Symonds in the second one-day international between Australia and Sri Lanka.

Manuel, who laid the charges with Procter and fellow umpire Billy Bowden, has been lauded as a courageous and fair man after he turned tradition on its crusty ear by recalling Symonds to the crease when the Queenslander was three-quarters of the way to the boundary.

Symonds had been judged lbw for a ball he bottom-edged on to his pad.

It is believed to be the first time in international cricket a batsman has been recalled after an lbw verdict.

But the goodwill flowing early yesterday turned sour when Australia was informed of the charges.

Manuel, initially seen as Australia's Good Samaritan, was reported to be the prime mover behind the action.

Symonds was charged for cursing the verdict at the crease and non-striker Gilchrist for saying several short sharp sentences to the umpire.

The umpires viewed footage of the incident yesterday before reporting to Procter, who summoned both players to the hearing.

Manuel ran the risk of having to get a police escort home on the four-hour drive to Colombo had Australia won the match. But the Aussies finished one run short with Symonds still at the crease.

They are the first Australians charged with misconduct since the players signed their "Spirit of Cricket" pledge in October.

Manuel has had a chequered career and three years ago was dropped from Sri Lanka's international panel after a poor series against England.

The separate hearings were set down for 9.30pm last night but were postponed until 6pm today to give all parties a better chance to prepare their cases.

[Donny]

A courageous decision

More from Robert Craddock


YOU can legislate all you like to put the spirit back into cricket but it's only when it happens naturally that it becomes one of sport's beautiful things.

Peter Manuel's decision to recall Andrew Symonds was one of the most interesting events to happen on a cricket field for many a year.

It was all the more impressive because umpires instructor Manuel, who had long urged other umpires be bold and admit their mistakes, had the courage to follow his own convictions.

Cricket over the years has become so bogged down in tradition it forgets about commonsense.

As match referee Mike Procter said after the game, there must have been tens of thousands of times when an umpire thought "I got that wrong" a few seconds after making a decision but refused to change their decision. We all do it in normal life.

Technically an umpire has until a player has crossed the boundary rope to change his mind but no-one ever takes advantage of it because it's just not the way cricket does things. The game is all about masking your weaknesses, not admitting your faults.

As impressive as anything was the way the Sri Lankan side got on with business after the decision was reversed.

There was no whingeing or air-kicking or mockery of an umpire just trying to get his job right. It would have been hard to imagine hot-blooded former Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga being as philosophical.

The decision almost cost Sri Lanka the match. Had they lost they would have been 2-0 in a best of five series and losing valuable momentum for the forthcoming Test series. Yet they accepted it with good grace and it has set a high bench mark for the future.

Impressive captain Marvan Atapattu seems to have firm control of his troops, who simply returned to business as if they had been waiting for a run-out verdict denied by the third umpire.

With one sensible piece of decision-making Manuel has heightened the standing of subcontinental umpires, so often harshly judged by the outside world.

Bar-side discussions about hometown umpiring decisions must now be balanced by recollection of the day when a man was brave enough to risk being lampooned by his home audience for changing his mind in public.

[commonwombat]

Agree with both you gents on this.

My thoughts are: For a first offender, lets face it we can show some mercy as we'll all cop a shocker or 2, the existing fine is probably OK. We must understand that not all intl cricketers are paid nearly as well as the Aussies.

Repeat offenders are another matter. He we should talk about suspensions and entire match fees. For those who think they are above the law, then suspensions for remainder of series would be appropriate.

A question is how we are going to define dissent. I beleive they must clearly define the matter ie demonstrable dissent. I'm not talking the roll of the eyes and shake of the head rather dissent of the verbal nature and/or gesture.

Walking is an interesting point. I think we'd all like to see more of it. Certainly not on LBW or tight decisions but frankly the Steve Waugh habit of hanging on like a limpet mine when the catch is clearly taken at 2nd, 3rd slip, gully and there's not a no-ball is something the game should be well rid of. In these cases, get on yr bike and get out of there, you're doing nothing for the game and for yourself.

Peter Roebucks comment (2nd of Dave's links) makes a number of worthwhile points. Craddock, as usual, is somewhat more superficial and doesn't ask the additional but necessary question of how many umpires would have the guts or humilty to admit error. I know for a fact that DB Hair Esq would NEVER be amongst that number

[Collies4Eva]

aparently gilly's been fined half his match fee but symmo escaped without penalty

[London Dave]

[commonwombat]

Too right, Dave.

Not the case of an umpire changing his decision but the can involving umpires being potentially "railroaded" into review/changing decisions. I am not by any means referring to the rare and honourable instances where a fieldsman/keeper asks for a batsman to be recalled if they are unsure of a catch carrying or the like.

There has already been a precedent for this happening. In about 1995, Hansie Cronje pressured an umpire to call for 3rd umpire assistance on a decision and a decision was reversed. Whilst not denying the general motivation of the players involved in such circumstances, I believe that the authorities have to stamp out these occurances.

If let unchecked, we are faced with an inevitable eroding of umpire's authority and the unscrupulous riding roughshod over the game. As an umpire myself, I acknowledge their part in this equation and the need for them to look closely at the way they go about their business.

I see this as a potentially vital issue for authorities, umpires and players alike to resolve. Most of us who love cricket enjoy the tough contest of the game but it is far too great a game to be taken to and played at the margins of sportsmanship and even society's accepted standards of conduct.

[Donny]

Gilchrist fined for dissent, but Symonds cleared

Wisden Cricinfo staff

Adam Gilchrist has been fined 50% of his match fee for a level-one breach of the ICC's Code of Conduct. But his team-mate Andrew Symonds has been cleared of dissent, following an incident during the second one-day international against Sri Lanka at Dambulla on Sunday.

Mike Procter, the ICC match referee, viewed videotapes on Monday morning of an incident in which Symonds was first adjudged to have been out lbw but later recalled after discussions between Peter Manuel, the umpire, and Marvan Atapattu, Sri Lanka's one-day captain.

The disciplinary inquiry in Colombo reviewed the evidence, in which Gilchrist threw down his gloves, apparently in disgust, while Symonds was alleged to have shown his bat to the umpire before walking off.

Ultimately, it was decided that Gilchrist's actions were worthy of censure, but Symonds escaped any fine. "Adam Gilchrist has been found guilty of a level-one Code of Conduct offence for showing dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse," read a statement, which added: "Andrew Symonds was found not guilty as there is a very fine line between disappointment and dissent."

After the match, Procter had praised the actions of Manuel, describing his decision as "courageous", and the sportsmanship of Atapattu, who had accepted that a mistake had been made and accepted Manuel's decision to recall Symonds. "You have to take your hat off to Marvan [Atapattu]," said Procter, although he added that Gilchrist's actions had not influenced Manuel's change of mind.

"I spoke to Peter [Manuel] minutes after he came off the field," said Procter, "and there is absolutely no question that either batsmen influenced his decision to call Symonds back."

The third one-dayer will be played under lights on Wednesday.

[Donny]

Policing has 'gone too far'

By Malcolm Conn and AAP - Fox


CRICKETERS around the world are becoming increasingly frustrated with the International Cricket Council's crackdown on player behaviour.

FICA, the body which represents player associations from most countries, will meet the ICC next month to raise concerns about the current trend, highlighted this week by the fining of Adam Gilchrist, one of the game's most admired players.

Tim May, joint chief executive of FICA, said there was a feeling that cricket authorities had gone too far in policing the game.

"Referees and umpires are under increasing pressure from the ICC to stamp their foot down," May said.

"We want to ensure that the game is played in the right spirit and that the laws are upheld but the players can show the emotion of professional sport when they are playing for their lives, without unduly breaching the rules or the code of conduct.

"I'm not talking about a specific incident but a trend over the last 12 months."

The catalyst for the ICC crackdown came in the West Indies almost a year ago when Glenn McGrath delivered a very public haranguing to opposing batsman Ramnaresh Sarwan but was not punished.

Referees and umpires were also told to be stronger and more proactive.

"There has to be a balance for the greater good of the game. I'm not sure where that balance lies at the moment," May said.

"One example of this is a bowler who gets an obvious edge to the wicketkeeper and runs down the wicket to celebrate.

"If he does not turn and appeal to the umpire he will be reported. That's just taking it too far."

May claimed the players want a clearer understanding of the ICC guidelines.

"From the players' perspective there is a certain amount of frustration at the moment," he said.

"The bottom line is that one of the great things about sport is the emotion. You don't want to take the emotion out of the game."

[Donny]

Lawson launches into Gilchrist fine

By Malcolm Conn - Fox


ADAM GILCHRIST has been harshly treated by authorities who have over-reacted to players' behaviour and failed to give Australia's vice-captain any real credit for walking during the World Cup, Geoff Lawson said yesterday.

Annoyed that Gilchrist was punished for dissent, the former Australia fast bowler and NSW captain claimed match referees were attempting to justify their positions and umpires were under pressure to report.

"Gilchrist gets no credit at all in a formal sense for what he did in the World Cup semi-final," Lawson, who is in Sri Lanka as a television commentator, said.

"In the spirit of the game, that was top-of-the-tree stuff. In a World Cup semi-final, the umpire gives you not out and you walk off. That's the spirit of cricket.

"Yet in a formal sense he gets no recognition from the ICC, the match referee or whoever. You ask yourself 'why not?'

"All you can do is get into trouble. You can't get any positive points from what you do."

Gilchrist was fined $2500, 50 per cent of his match fee, after reacting as the non-striker in Sunday's match against Sri Lanka to a poor leg-before-wicket decision against Andrew Symonds by local umpire Peter Manuel, who later recalled Symonds.

It was the third time Gilchrist has been found guilty of dissent in three years but Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland claimed he had no concerns.

"I could not think of a person in Australian or world cricket who is a better ambassador for the game with what he does on and off the field," Sutherland said.

"I feel for him. We do not condone the report or the fact he was found guilty of dissent but I know Adam extremely well and I'm sure he's remorseful."

Sutherland believes that in some ways Gilchrist is a victim of his own honesty by the way he reacts.

"There is no question that Cricket Australia is absolutely 100 per cent behind Adam Gilchrist," he said.

No further action will be taken against Gilchrist under the players' Spirit of Cricket pledge signed last October.

With confusion surrounding how the pledge applies, Sutherland said it only comes into force when there are no formal charges laid by CA or the ICC but captain Ricky Ponting or other team members have concerns about how a player has acted.

Sutherland claimed that the pledge had not failed simply because Gilchrist had been reported and found guilty.

"In the previous 12 months there were a spate of incidents which proved the catalyst for the players to have a good think about things," he said.

"Since then their behaviour has been almost impeccable."

Symonds was also charged but later cleared by match referee Mike Procter.

"I can't even believe that Symonds got cited for his behaviour," Lawson said.

"He should have got a pat on the back for pretty constrained behaviour given the shocking decision."

Lawson believes that players are now given no leeway to express their emotions in a difficult and demanding sport.

"I think the limits we've got at the moment are incredibly small," he said. "The threshold is just so tight.

"Everyone has painted themselves into a corner.

"Where do you draw the line? The line has been drawn pretty close to zero tolerance."