Punishment precedents for Board to lean on

Sun, May 11 12:05 AM

WHILE A player slapping another on the field is unprecedented, the Board of Control for Cricket in India certainly has history to lean on when its disciplinary committee takes a decision on the Sreesanth-Harbhajan Singh affair after it receives Sudhir Nanavati's findings. Nanavati, appointed commissioner to investigate the incident, is a legal ace, and he, above all people, will know the importance of precedent.

The closest example in this case is the Raman Lamba-Rashid Patel incident during a Duleep Trophy match in Jamshedpur in the 1990-91 season. After North Zone had piled up over 700 - Lamba's contribution being 180 - a heated exchange of words between Baroda left-arm seamer Patel and Lamba was followed by Patel hurling a beamer at Lamba, and then uprooting a stump and chasing him all the way to the boundary.

In that incident, often referred to as among the most disgraceful actions on a cricket field in Indian domestic cricket, no blow was struck and yet the BCCI took a serious view of what happened. Madhavrao Scindia, then president, and Jayawant Lele, secretary, were quick to ban both players - Patel for 13 months and Lamba for 10.

When the disciplinary committee, which comprises the Sharad Pawar, the BCCI president, Shashank Manohar and Chirayu Amin, both vice-presidents, is convened after Nanavati submits his report on Monday, they will have many questions to ponder. Chief among them: if the BCCI levied such serious bans on two players, in a domestic match, when no blow was landed, just what will be appropriate punishment in the current case? The disciplinary committee will also have to take into account the fact that in the Lamba-Patel case, it was not merely aggressor who was taken to task, but the man who 'provoked' too.

Nanavati, who took depositions from both players in Ahmedabad on Friday, said they indicated that they wanted to move on. However, it's not quite as simple as that: if players decided their own punishments, there would be no need for match referees or disciplinary committees.

Moreover, this is perhaps the highest-profile case in world cricket in recent times and the International Cricket Council will be watching closely to see how the BCCI treats the matter. Ranjan Madugalle, who heads the match referee's panel, made his views on physical contact in cricket amply clear in England last year when Sreesanth deliberately shoulder-barged Michael Vaughan in the second Test at Trent Bridge.

"Cricket is a non-contact sport and any deviation from that fact is completely unacceptable, a point I made to Sreesanth in handing down my verdict," Madugalle had said after fining Sreesanth 50% of his match fee for violating clause 2.4 of the code of conduct (inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between players in the course of play). "I have no problem with players being combative on the field but there is a line they cannot cross," Madugalle had said.

"Sreesanth crossed that line when he barged past Vaughan, a collision he had every opportunity to avoid." There was a further incident on the recent tour of South Africa when Sreesanth was fined 30% of his match fee for brushing past Hashim Amla in Johannesburg after dismissing him, when physical contact was eminently avoidable.

Harbhajan's act was certainly deliberate, and a complete deviation from the non-contact aspect that Madugalle referred to. If the BCCI applies the same set of principles as the ICC - and sources suggest they will - Harbhajan's woes are far from finished.

Sreesanth, who got away with a warning from Farookh Engineer, the match referee at the IPL match between Mohali and Mumbai where the incident occurred, might also not be so lucky. Nanavati has admitted that one of the questions he will address when preparing his report, is why Sreesanth, and no-one else, was slapped.

Sreesanth's history of brushes with the law are almost as long as Harbhajan's, and BCCI sources revealed they were running out of patience with the duo who have been backed by the board when required. Harbhajan's luck ran out when he was banned from 10 IPL matches, with one back-handed slap costing him close to Rs 3 crore.

The disciplinary committee, which is set to meet "in about 10 days' time" after receiving Nanavati's report, will decide just how hard a line to take, and it will come as no surprise if both players are in the dock.

RECOMMEND THIS STORY