Indian bowler Munaf Patel was fined 75% of his match fee for arguing with the umpire in the 2nd ODI against Sri Lanka.
Munaf was penalised for breaching ICC's level 2 offence after on-field umpire Gamini Silva lodged a complaint to match referee Chris Broad citing that Munaf argued with him regarding an LBW decision.
However, the Indian team management denied the allegations saying that the Baroda pacer has never got into an argument with Silva.
Team manager Sanjay Desai said they will decide whether to appeal against the decision after discussion with the BCCI.
Showing posts with label breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breach. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Samuel to Fight Two Year Ban!
Marlon Samuel has hired lawyers to fight his case agains the two year ban. The disciplinary committee found Samuel breached section C4 of the ICC's Code of Conduct regulations, which involves receiving money, benefit or other reward which could bring him or the game of cricket into disrepute.
"From the outset, we wish to make it pellucidly clear that we propose to challenge the findings of the majority [3 to 1] by way of judicial enquiry, as we believe a most grave injustice has been done by their finding of our client's liability of one of the ICC's disciplinary offences," the lawyers said in a statement issued yesterday.
The lawyers raised the following points to make a case for their client:
"The evidence in the hearing was that the hotel bill paid for our client by Mr Mukesh Kochar was a loan from a friend and father-figure which was to be repaid on Marlon's return to the West Indies."
"The evidence in the hearing was that Mr Mukesh Kochar was not a bookmaker."
"The evidence in the hearing was that Marlon only came to need a loan because money which he had expected to earn from a contract to participate in a television reality show that would have earned him a sum considerably in excess of the hotel bill, did not in fact materialise. Further, his credit card which he had tendered to meet the bill, was declined."
"It is because of the foregoing why we consider that an application for judicial review stands a realistic chance of success and we, therefore, propose to pursue it actively," the attorneys said.
"From the outset, we wish to make it pellucidly clear that we propose to challenge the findings of the majority [3 to 1] by way of judicial enquiry, as we believe a most grave injustice has been done by their finding of our client's liability of one of the ICC's disciplinary offences," the lawyers said in a statement issued yesterday.
The lawyers raised the following points to make a case for their client:
"The evidence in the hearing was that the hotel bill paid for our client by Mr Mukesh Kochar was a loan from a friend and father-figure which was to be repaid on Marlon's return to the West Indies."
"The evidence in the hearing was that Mr Mukesh Kochar was not a bookmaker."
"The evidence in the hearing was that Marlon only came to need a loan because money which he had expected to earn from a contract to participate in a television reality show that would have earned him a sum considerably in excess of the hotel bill, did not in fact materialise. Further, his credit card which he had tendered to meet the bill, was declined."
"It is because of the foregoing why we consider that an application for judicial review stands a realistic chance of success and we, therefore, propose to pursue it actively," the attorneys said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)