ICC not to appeal Anderson verdict

Saturday, 9 August 2014 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The ICC has decided against appealing the not guilty verdict handed to James Anderson in the pushing case involving Ravindra Jadeja at Trent Bridge. It has also stressed that there is “no place in the game” for personal insults among players. The Level 3 offence Anderson was charged with was heard on 1 August by judicial commissioner Gordon Lewis, who let him off citing a lack of video evidence and impartial testimony. The BCCI had requested the governing body to lodge an appeal, as only the chief executive David Richardson or the player concerned (had the verdict gone against him) can stake the claim. However, the ICC believes the dispute has been investigated thoroughly and an appeal would serve no purpose.

“This outcome is the result of two exhaustive and thorough disciplinary processes and, after considering the written decision, the ICC is satisfied with the manner in which the decisions have been reached,” Richardson said. “The disciplinary procedures were robust and transparent and all parties had ample opportunity to ask questions, test the evidence and make submissions. We have determined that there is no merit in an appeal and that it would not be in the best interest of the sport to take such action. “It was a complicated and sensitive matter relating to charges brought against two players at different levels of the ICC Code of Conduct. There appears to have been vastly conflicting evidence on both sides, with a total of 13 witnesses who gave testimony. After carefully considering the decision by Gordon Lewis, whose vast experience was invaluable to the process over recent weeks, we believe that no further purpose would be served by prolonging the process through further appeal proceedings.” On the use of offensive language, Richardson said: “International cricket is tough, competitive and uncompromising but we must reiterate that there is no place in the game for the use of offensive language that is personally insulting of one player by another. “It is imperative that all captains, players and coaches as well as umpires and referees are reminded of and do not shirk their responsibility to one another and to the game.”

Message sent is ‘it’s okay to abuse’: Dravid

Rahul Dravid, the former India captain, is concerned about the message sent out by the ‘not guilty’ verdict in the James Anderson-Ravindra Jadeja pushing case. While there have been calls for the matter to be put to rest, Dravid said abuse, evidence of which was in umpire Bruce Oxenford’s report, had no place in the sport and that some reprimand had to be meted out. “The message we’ve given out at the moment, the game has given out, is that it’s okay to do this stuff [abuse], which I think is wrong. I think there needed to be some sort of action taken,” Dravid told ESPNcricinfo. “Some punishments needed to be handed out. We all know from Bruce Oxenford’s report what Jimmy [Anderson] has said, the words that he’s used. That is on the report and no one is denying the fact that there was that kind of abuse and England is claiming that Jadeja turned and so we must bring that into the equation as well, but at the end of all of this, we have seen no punishments handed out.” The dispute had happened as players left for lunch during the second day of the Trent Bridge Test and has hung over the series since. India had charged Anderson with a Level 3 offence for pushing Jadeja but England had filed a Level 2 charge against Jadeja arguing that he had allegedly wheeled around aggressively prompting Anderson to act in self-defence. However, with no video evidence and with testimony from both sides being “hopelessly biased” judicial commissioner Gordon Lewis’ decision had let both players off. India had pushed for an appeal, but the ICC has sealed the matter shut with their decision to not appeal. Anderson might function better when he is riled up, Dravid said, but he might have forgotten when to stop. That escalation prompted Dravid to highlight the difference between sledging – which he said was acceptable – and a personal attack, which should be eradicated. “He [Anderson] is someone who, and I think he’s spoken about it that ‘I need to get motivated by being aggressive’... But the problem is at times I think he has overstepped the line, he has gone over the mark. Whether it was in this case or not we will actually never know. “You don’t mind the odd sledging. People are getting confused about the difference between sledging and actual what is abuse here. And people have said ‘oh let’s move on’ or ‘let’s walk away from this’ but I think we can move on from sledging. We’ve been there, we’ve all played cricket games where you walk in and somebody uses the odd expletive when you get beaten and says ‘any chance of you nicking one’, you know ‘ your feet are stuck in cement’ stuff like that. You could go on and on about stuff like that, I’m sure that’s fine. “But when you walk off the field abusing someone and making it personal, then I think that’s the danger when you do cross that line and things can happen where you get physical. So you’ve got to be very careful when you cross that line, and sort of stay within what is acceptable behaviour.”