Hardik Pandya: WhatsApp

“In the last two years I have started speaking more confidently and that’s because of WhatsApp.”
—Hardik Pandya.

Commentary on Lodha Commission recommendations to BCCI – VI

Chapter Seven: Ombudsman, Ethics & Electoral Officers

The Lodha Commission recommends the creation of three authorities to make the functioning of the BCCI more transparent and independent:

An ombudsman to resolve internal conflicts independent of the BCCI,

an ethics officer to administer matters regarding conflict of interest, and

an electoral officer to ensure a clean and fair elections process.

1) Ombudsman

The committee recommends the appointment of a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a former Chief Justice of a High Court as the Ombudsman of the BCCI, to be appointed once a year at the Annual General Meeting.

The ombudsman will attend to any disputes between the Board and its member associations.

Principles of natural justice, production of evidence and fair hearing are to be followed.

The ombudsman can also entertain and redress any grievance or complaint by members of the public concerning ticketing, access and facilities at stadia, and lack of transparency in the award of contracts for goods and services.

2) Ethics Officer

The ethics officer is to be a former justice of a state high court.

He/ she will monitor conflict of interest, code of behaviour and any other similar rules.

The panel rapped the BCCI saying:

“The approach of the BCCI in recent years in administering these Codes (of conduct) has not been encouraging, especially when powerful figures in the sport were involved. “

Full member associations are also to observe all the ethical principles including those concerning Conflict of Interest. An ombudsman can cover for an ethics officer in members. Multiple states can appoint a single ethics officer.

3) Electoral Officer

A former Election Commissioner of India is to be appointed as electoral officer of the BCCI. His/ her decision would be final and conclusive regarding scrutinizing of nominations and clearing them, drawing up and verifying the electoral roll after identifying appropriate representatives of the Full Members, ensuring that no candidate falls foul of the Rules, and declaration of results.

To Mankad or not to Mankad, that is the question

When Keemo Paul ran out Richard Ngarava in the final over, with the under-19  Zimbabwe side requiring three runs with a wicket in hand, he re-sparked a debate about the run-out law that allows a bowler to break the stumps if he or she finds the non-striker out of bounds.

The West Indians insisted on upholding the appeal. The umpires had no option but to declare the batsman out. The dismissal was legal.

The Zimbabweans were understandably distraught.

Their hopes of making the Under-19 World Cup quarter-final were shattered—cruelly.

Law 42.15 of the MCC Laws of Cricket pertaining to Fair and Unfair Play states:

“Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery:
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.”

Don Bradman — Source: http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/australia/content/image/161569.html (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sir Donald Bradman had this to say about the original Mankading when India’s Vinoo Mankad ran out Australia’s Bill Brown in the second Test in 1947:

“An early sensation came in Australia’s innings when Brown was once more run out by Mankad, who, in the act of delivering the ball, held on to it and whipped the bails off with Brown well out of his crease.

This had happened in the Indian match against Queensland, and immediately in some quarters Mankad’s sportsmanship was questioned.

For the life of me I cannot understand why. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered.

If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?

By backing up too far or too early the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage … there was absolutely no feeling in the matter as far as we were concerned, for we considered it quite a legitimate part of the game.”

Bryon Coverdale, in a 2013 article, is even more scathing in his indictment of the practice of backing up.

He wrote:

“The ICC’s playing condition 42.11 explicitly states that a mankad is fair. An additional clause should be added to state that an umpire must not consult the fielding captain before making his decision, unless the conversation is instigated by the captain.

Certainly a mankad is no less fair than when a striker’s straight drive rockets through the bowler’s hands and hits the stumps with the non-striker out of his ground. Of course, umpires rightly treat that as they do a regulation run-out. Just as they should with the mankad.”

Cricinfo carried a poll ‘Should the Mankad dismissal be part of the game?’ with its article covering the incident.

The results of the poll were as follows:

Yes – the batsman should not be allowed to gain ground unfairly 38.06% 21881

No – it is not within the spirit of the game 12.79% 7355

Yes – but only after the batsman has been warned once 49.14% 28250

Total votes: 57486

Coverdale’s views are consonant with the off-side rule in soccer and baseball rules about stealing bases.

In baseball, the pitcher and the catcher may try and tag out a runner who appears to be trying to steal a base by taking too big a lead-off. Unlike cricket, runners can take a head start towards the next base, but the pitcher and the catcher are within their rights to tag them out if they try to steal more than one base from a hit.  A pitcher cannot abort or ‘balk’ once he or she commits to home plate.

Runners are never warned; the rules are crystal clear.

The naysayers to the above viewpoint subscribe to the notion that cricket is a gentleman’s game.

Is it, really? That’s debatable.

If this is how Under-19 cricketers play the game nowadays, it surely isn’t.

Commentary on Lodha Commission recommendations to BCCI – V

Chapter Six: Conflict of Interest

The sixth chapter of the Lodha Commission recommendations to the BCCI and its constituents deals with the kicker that began the reforms ball rolling within the cricketing body.

Yes, conflict of interest is the title of chapter six; Shashank Manohar, a lawyer by profession, tackled the matter as soon as he took over as the latest BCCI president.

His predecessor, N Srinivasan, was forced to quit as President as his position as both owner of an IPL team and administrator was considered untenable by the Supreme Court.

The Lodha Commission considers resolution of conflict of interest the “underpinning of all governance in the civilized world.”

The commission further remarks the BCCI had “an extremely casual understanding of the concept of Conflict of Interest.”

The members of the panel recognise that there is a lack of understanding in players and officials about the very concept unlike legal professionals who are “attuned to conflict mechanisms and their avoidance on a daily basis.”

Conflict of interest and overlapping interests were treated very subjectively by administrators and players and there was a lack of voluntary disclosure in many an instance.

The commission further damns the BCCI that the advent of the IPL only meant that the BCCI accommodated these ‘inherent’ conflicts.

Conflict of interest issues are central to ethical conduct.

The BCCI’s newly spelt out guidelines on this issue should apply to all individuals connected or employed with the BCCI i.e. every Office Bearer, Player, Councillor, Employee, Administrator, Team Official, Umpire or other person connected to the BCCI, its Members or the IPL and its Franchisees. These include both acts of commission and omission.

Conflicts are broadly classified as tractable and intractable.

An Ethics Officer is to apply the policy for the BCCI.

Ian Chappell: Good bowling

“The secret to good bowling is to keep believing you can dismiss a batsman. Once that thought turns to purely containment, the batsman is winning the battle.”
—Ian Chappell.

Novak Djokovic: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Novak Djokovic wolves down Grand Slam titles.

What he said:

“It’s much easier for the wolf that is going uphill and running up the mountain—not easier, but he was hungrier than the wolf standing on the hill.”

Novak Djokovic savoured his 11th major and sixth Australian Open overall with a meaty metaphor.

Comparing himself to a wild canine on top of the mountain, he said that he could not relax as his competitors were wolves too and hungrier.

He added:

“You can observe it from different sides, but, I believe that all the guys that are out there fighting each week to get to No. 1 are very hungry to get to No. 1, and I know that. I can’t allow myself to relax and enjoy. Of course I want to enjoy, and I will, but it’s not going to go more than few days. After that I’m already thinking about how can I continue on playing well throughout the rest of the season each tournament.

Kind of a mindset that one needs to have if one wants to stay up there. Because I think you need to work double as hard when you’re up there.

I believe that I can win every match I play (and) I’m playing the tennis of my life in the last 15 months. The results are showing that.

But you can get a very big slap from karma. I don’t want that.”

The Djoker rounded off his reverie by assuring his listeners that he was ravenous to clinch his first French Open.

He said:

“Very hungry. But the wolf needs to eat a lot of different meals to get to Paris. Paris is a dessert.”

What he really meant:

“It takes more to stay at the top than to get there.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“What a wolf-pack we male tennis players are. Woo-hoo, Woo-hoo! Ready or not, here we come! Call me Wolverine!”

Yuvraj Singh’s exploits vindicate Hazel Keech’s ‘naivete’

Hazel Keech stands vindicated.

Yuvraj Singh batting at Adelaide Oval (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The British-Mauritian model and actress was ruthlessly trolled by ‘knowledgeable’ cricket fans for questioning Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s decision to keep fiance Yuvraj Singh out of the firing line in the first two T20s.

The tweet was later deleted but the fusillade of retorts from rude fans kept pouring in.

Let Ms. Keech’s timeline tell the story:

Yuvi seemed well on the way to proving his detractors right in the third T20 barely getting bat to ball with just five runs to his name off nine deliveries.

That changed in the final over of the run chase; it was vintage Singh dispatching the first ball to the ropes and depositing the second in the stands.

It was all over bar the shouting. The required runs had reduced from a screaming 17 off 6 to a manageable 7 off 4. A desperate bye off the third ball and it was left to Raina to collect the winning runs with cool aplomb.

This is the latest on Keech’s timeline:

Trust her man to come good and silence her haters with his exploits.

Sunny Gavaskar: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Sunil Gavaskar lights up the Melbourne night with his remarks.

What he said:

“He (Virat Kohli) can even bat at midnight without light and still bat well.  …

Rohit kills you with tickle and Kohli can punch you to death. Either way you are going to die.”

The original Little Master switched on his eulogistic side when Team India clinched the T20 series against Australia at Melbourne on Friday evening.

He said:

“He is setting the bar higher for the future players. He is in fantastic form… form which the players dream about. he can even bat at midnight without light and still bat well. The Australians cant get him out. They will have to wait for him to commit a mistake.

I would not bowl to both of them. Rohit kills you with tickle and Kohli can punch you to death. Either way you are going to die.

I want to see India win the series 3-0. Kohli should continue to bat at number three. Never ever flirt with form, it’s so fickle, don’t flirt with it. Yuvraj can bat during the Asia Cup, World Twenty20. Let India make a clean sweep.

He (Dhoni) has got now Yuvraj, Ashish Nehra, Hardik Pandya in the side. He has plenty of bowling and batting options. It has eased off the pressure on him. Bhajji (Harbhajan Sigh) is sitting on the bench which means it is a very good selection. The balance is terrific. Pandya can bat at number seven and can bowl. Even if a bowler is hammered around, Dhoni can go to the other bowler.

The Aussies were under pressure and it was a good omen for the Indians for the World Twenty20.”

What he really meant:

“Kohli’s batting like a dream. If you’re a day-dreaming bowler, dreaming of bagging either or both , Rohit will tickle you out of any such fancy ideas while Kohli will match you, blow for blow. Either way, it’s death by panache.”

What he definitely didn’t:

“Tickle me pink, I wonder if these two guys would love day-night Test cricket!”

India’s scores not par for the course says Ravichandran Ashwin

Ravichandran Ashwin’s revealing statement that his side underestimated par scores in the early part of the ODI series leading to their comeuppance against a marauding Australian batting line-up is right on the money.

The ace spinner said:

“In the past 300 or 260s have been winning scores when we came and played an ODI series here. I think we played in that mindset coming into the series, trying to post a score rather than trying to overachieving and falling short. I thought we did pretty well to post 310s and 320s, just that the par scores were 330s.”

It was only in the fourth and fifth ODIs that the Indians were a match for their opponents.

The lessons had been learned but it was too little, too late.

The ODI series was lost without a semblance of a whimper or a whisper.

Ashwin added:

“As you saw in the last game, even at Canberra and Sydney, I think we would have achieved 350s. Maybe that’s the reason. Obviously the wickets have gone flatter. So I think it was just a question of not calculating the par scores properly.”

Ashwin’s statements highlight the need to aim higher to get what you want.

If you aim for 300, you’re unlikely to get more than that. Less probably, but very rarely more.

The Indian team’s think-tank were definitely out of sync with the changing reality of Australian pitches outlandish batting skills in their young stars and the effect the ever changing ODI rules have had on team totals.

The irony is that this is the same kind of thinking that pervaded visiting teams’ thinking patterns when they assumed a score of 260-280 was good enough to clinch victory on sub-continental wickets a few seasons ago.

Indian batters proved them wrong easily overhauling these totals and posting 300+ totals when batting first.

It certainly has been an Indian summer Down Under this series.

‘Chatter-box’ Steve Smith finds Virat Kohli ‘too emotional’ to handle (Updated)

Does using an on-field microphone to interact and engage with the telecasters make you a chatterbox?

Virat Kohli certainly thought so when he gave Steven Smith a fiery send-off in the first T20 against Australia.

The Test skipper—relieved of captaincy duties—was back to being the animated fury on the ground he usually is.

The Delhi cricketer is all aggro as a player and mouths expletives at the drop of a hat.

Kohli saw red when his opposing Test counterpart lost his wicket cheaply while commentating live for Channel 9.

Australian viewers were not amused with the manner of Smith’s dismissal blaming the broadcasters for disturbing his concentration.

They took in hordes to Twitter to deplore the broadcaster’s unwelcome intrusion.

What’s really going on?

Do fans really need insights from batters about what’s happening on the field?

This kind of circus is part and parcel of the Big Bash League and the Indian Premier League.

The purported purpose is to make the the viewers and the expert commentators feel part of the action.

It would be better if mic’ing up players was restricted to fielders and umpires. Bowlers and batters need to be able to focus and concentrate on how they’re to be delivering or playing the next ball. Fielding is a much more instinctive chore consisting of reacting to on-field events as they occur. Similarly, umpiring.

Batters and bowlers, however, need to plan and pace their innings and overs.

But what was the actual reason for Kohli’s acrid mouthing off and signing?

Could it be that the Indian was not pleased that Smith was shielded from the banter fielders engage in when rival batters are at the crease?

Kohli has mentioned that he sees nothing wrong with sledging the opposition.

His young Indian side is not known to hold back unlike previous Indian sides.

He said:

“The opposition has every right to sledge as long as it doesn’t not cross the line and you have every right to reply as long as it is doesn’t cross the line. There have been lot of smart comments of late and mine turned out to be a perfectly timed one.

I did not intend to do that. I just said what came to mind. It was actually not far from the truth. That banter is enjoyable but at the same time, you need to focus on the game.”

Sledgers wouldn’t enjoy their choicest jibes drowned out by commentary from the press box.  Why would they? Additionally , they would have to be careful around the boffin with the microphone lest their tomfoolery be caught by the sensitive microphones.

Not much fun for the fielders. The boot would be on the other foot with them forced to be silent around a jabbering Steve Smith.

Can you see the irony in the situation?

And assuming that what the fielders said did carry to Steve Smith, how would he be able to focus with three or more sets of sounds in his eardrums?

Fielders’ banter, experts’ questions, noise from the crowd and finally the sound of his own voice.

That sounds like a lot to take in—even for a man who has scored a mountain of runs in every format over the past two years.

Kohli was the man who had a hand (and mouth) in Smith’s dismissal. Steven Smith was out for 21 off 14 balls caught by Kohli bowled Ravindra Jadeja.

Smith immediately shut up giving no further feedback to the Wide World of Sports commentary team.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni had earlier criticised Spider Cam and intrusion from TV gimmicks.

Spider Cam obstructed Virat Kohli’s first scoring shot in the final ODI preventing a sure boundary. The ball was declared dead.

The operators of this novelty are known to thrust the lens right under the face of departing batsmen hoping to capture their visible disappointment for television viewers. Aussie players are accustomed to such paparazzi-like behaviour from cameramen but Indian players are disturbed and irate.

Dhoni said:

“I am quite a traditional guy. I have always felt that… anything that disturbs the game of cricket I don’t like it. It all started right from the T20 where people would be like, ‘Why don’t you wear a mic?’, ‘Why don’t you wear a camera?’

I have always felt there is a need for balance. At the end of the day it is a spectator sport, people watching on television, but at the same time four runs can matter, especially when it is a close game. Those four runs can be crucial. Everyone gets penalised, why not have the same system for the spidercam? Say, ‘Okay if you get hit, 2000 dollars per hit.’ Let’s make it interesting.

People [broadcasters] are striving for more. When you have got out and walking off, the cameraman goes right under your face. The same way the spidercam is right next to you. You have seen players, they are like, ‘What is happening?’ It makes a lot of noise. At the end of the day it is also about the spectators. If spectators are not there, cricket won’t be played. It is a mix and match; 2000 dollars per hit is a good option.”

Steve Smith called the Spider Cam “his best fielder.”

Smith was unrepentant about his mode of dismissal in the first T20 denying that his on-field commenting had anything to do with his early exit.

He said:

“It [the commentary] was on at the time, but for me it was just a bad shot.

I tried to chip one over the top for two rather than trying to hit him for four or six.

It was my fault and I got to do better next time.”

Of Kohli’s send-off, he added:

“He gets pretty emotional out there, doesn’t he?

I don’t think you need to do that kind of thing when someone gets out.

It’s fine to have a little bit of banter when you’re out in the field, but when someone’s out I don’t really think that’s on.”

https://twitter.com/_hafees/status/691970480123678721

Virat Kohli finally disclosed the reason for his heated reaction at Steve Smith’s dismissal.

It had nothing to do with Smith’s on-field commentating but his verbal targeting of young Indian pacers after hitting a boundary.

Kohli felt it added  to the pressure on them and was simply not on. He felt that he had to step in and make his displeasure known.

Hence, the expressive ‘farewell‘.