Sri Lanka captain, coach and manager suspended for four ODIs along with two Tests [Update Post #105]

[SL_Fan]

Generally, match referees wait for two things before moving forward with such a step.

1) Video of the player tampering (lolly, sandpaper, razor blade)
2) The ball's condition being visibly changed

In Chandimal's case, both things happened. He was caught on tape putting a mint in his mouth and immediately shining the ball. Plus, the ball had a sticky substance on it.

That's more than enough proof to lay down tampering charges and rightfully so.

Yes, you can argue about certain regulations or how much of an effect such tampering has but the rules are there for everyone.

The point tho is that blatant ball tampering (ie nails, spikes, lifting the seam etc) is one thing but the law as it stands when it comes to "artificial substances" is as vague as it gets. In the real world policing this sort of thing is pretty much impossible. If the cameras keep a close eye on the ball and follow it around you will see minor cases like this in most games. Sometimes deliberate and the other times unintentional. I mean suppose they ban lollies (which is probably the only way to properly enforce it) but then what about sunscreen and zinc cream for instance. They are artificial substances also and over the years players have used those to help shine the ball as well. So what happens there? ICC have opened a real can of worms with this one.

 

[SL_Fan]

What does sweet do to the condition of the ball? Why do players cheat with it? Genuine question.

No one knows really.

There’s no real proof that they make a massive difference to the ball anyway especially with the Kookaburras. With the Dukes yeah a few Eng players have claimed that it does help but Dukes tend to swing more and for longer regardless. Plus of course the conditions in Eng typically tend to favour swing bowling as well. So not sure how their claims alone can be used as any kind of proof when there are plenty more factors at play there.

 

[SL_Fan]

Chewing on lollies, gum etc does help produce more saliva but that's about it. Rest is pretty much unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Major]

Chewing on lollies, gum etc does help produce more saliva but that's about it. Rest is pretty much unsubstantiated claims.

Except for spit, nothing else needs to be used for shining the ball.

Atleast spit is being allowed.

In baseball the rules are very damn strict.

 

[SL_Fan]

Well players use sweat (mixed with sunscreen, zinc cream etc) and clothing as well which is why the law concerning no artificial substances is impossible to enforce properly.

 

[SL_Fan]

Haroon Lorgat was pretty much on point here.

Define artificial substance: CSA

"In fairness to both him (Faf) and the ICC, this is an unprecedented case involving unique issues of policy, science and performance that need to be carefully considered at the highest levels of the game.

"There are also issues relating to fair and just process, interpretation of the rules, and importantly, the consistent application of the Code of Conduct that needs to be considered.

"CSA believes that the Laws of the game do not currently define the term 'artificial substance', leaving room for inconsistent application of the rules. For instance, the Laws currently prevent the use of 'artificial substances' to polish the ball, yet artificial cotton fibres from playing kit can be used to shine the ball.

"Players also regularly chew gum when applying saliva to the ball, or ingest sugary drinks and sweets during short breaks in play before shining the ball. No action is taken in such circumstances by the umpires.

"Test match cricket is a competitive sport at the highest level and players and fans deserve certainty around these issues. Integrity and consistent application of the rules are important for everyone."

 

[kingusama92]

The point tho is that blatant ball tampering (ie nails, spikes, lifting the seam etc) is one thing but the law as it stands when it comes to "artificial substances" is as vague as it gets. In the real world policing this sort of thing is pretty much impossible. If the cameras keep a close eye on the ball and follow it around you will see minor cases like this in most games. Sometimes deliberate and the other times unintentional. I mean suppose they ban lollies (which is probably the only way to properly enforce it) but then what about sunscreen and zinc cream for instance. They are artificial substances also and over the years players have used those to help shine the ball as well. So what happens there? ICC have opened a real can of worms with this one.

I agree, it's very hard to spot subtle forms of tampering on camera.

However, umpires can definitely keep an eye on the ball. Is the shiny side starting to feel oddly sticky? Is the seam raised unnaturally? Are there unnatural scuff marks on one side?

Their main concern is the ball's condition.

I'll give you another example using "running on the pitch" as an example:

1) Batsman runs down the middle by mistake and gets a warning
2) Same batsman runs down the middle again by mistake
3) Pitch has been ruined and that batsman gets penalized (5 runs)

As you can see, it doesn't matter what the batsman's intent was or what he used to ruin the pitch. If damage is done, he will be penalized.

 

[SL_Fan]

You know what and where the danger areas of the pitch are tho. Here no one really knows what is meant by "no artificial substances."

 

[Gilly]

You know what and where the danger areas of the pitch are tho. Here no one really knows what is meant by "no artificial substances."

The laws are very clear all you have to do is read them.

 

[kingusama92]

You know what and where the danger areas of the pitch are tho. Here no one really knows what is meant by "no artificial substances."

You're right and that's been a point of contention forever. It should be tweaked to allow for things such as mints.

Problem is, there's no doubt whatsoever about the ICC's stance on mints/sandpaper/razors. There's no way Chandimal can say "I didn't realize mints were illegal" when the precedent is already set (multiple times).

 

[Sherlock]

Is there an official video/still being released, or has it already and I've missed it?

 

[UN talkz]

Is there an official video/still being released, or has it already and I've missed it?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Chandimal found guilty of changing the condition of the ball <a href="https://t.co/fxrTvPdlrW">https://t.co/fxrTvPdlrW</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/ICC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@icc</a></p>— ICC Media (@ICCMediaComms) <a href="https://twitter.com/ICCMediaComms/status/1009143086151274496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 19, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[SL_Fan]

The videos keep getting taken down for some reason. Here's a link.

Shine bright like a diamond

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/aftlz/vhaleq" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[SL_Fan]

The laws are very clear all you have to do is read them.

Well in that case you should be able to clarify what is meant by no artificial substances and how exactly that can be enforced out in the real world right. ICC certainly don’t seem to have much of a clue except to just wing it as they see fit. So please enlighten my mind and soul.

 

[SL_Fan]

You're right and that's been a point of contention forever. It should be tweaked to allow for things such as mints.

Problem is, there's no doubt whatsoever about the ICC's stance on mints/sandpaper/razors. There's no way Chandimal can say "I didn't realize mints were illegal" when the precedent is already set (multiple times).

As far as I’m aware only two international players have been charged previously for ball tampering using mints/lollies (Dravid and Faf). In both instances however they were clearly seen using the mints/lollies directly on the ball. Here tho that was not the case it was spit that was used to shine the ball. The only thing is that the player happened to have popped the lolly in the mouth just prior to doing so. Now was that careless and stupid? Yes certainly especially given the current climate. But was the footage conclusive enough to penalise the team, change the ball and charge someone with ball tampering? I don’t think so. Players have been spit shining the ball while chewing gum and lollies since forever. Same with sweat while wearing sunscreen and zinc cream etc. So afaik this is the first time an international team has been penalised and a player charged with ball tampering for such a minor act. As I said earlier if the cameras were to follow the ball around closely during matches you will see this sort of thing happening in most games, a lot of the time unintentionally.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Dinesh Chandimal has appealed against the match referee’s findings that saw him suspended for one Test after being found guilty of changing the condition of the ball. <a href="https://t.co/2tmoYSQGOd">pic.twitter.com/2tmoYSQGOd</a></p>— ICC (@ICC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ICC/status/1009697643231096832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[kingusama92]

But was the footage conclusive enough to penalise the team, change the ball and charge someone with ball tampering?

It is when combined with the ball's condition.

Remember, the umpires were already concerned about the ball BEFORE any footage was found. They felt it was being tampered with.

Then Chandimal's footage was found and they connected the dots. This is why Chandimal doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. His act (intentional or not) led to a tampered ball.

Chandimal would have easily got away with it if that ball was in good shape. He clearly overdid it (probably has been cheating for a while) and is now paying the consequences.

 

[MenInG]

Sri Lanka's captain denies charge of attempting to change the condition of the ball.

The ICC today confirmed that Chairman of the ICC Code of Conduct Commission, The Hon Michael Beloff QC, has been appointed as the Judicial Commissioner to hear Sri Lanka captain Dinesh Chandimal’s appeal.

The hearing will take place on Friday, 22 June, and, legal counsel for both parties and Mr Chandimal will join via telephone or videoconference.

The ICC will announce the result of the hearing through its usual channels and will not make any further comment until that time.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/747667

 

[MenInG]

The three were charged by the ICC Chief Executive David Richardson on Tuesday.

Sri Lanka captain Dinesh Chandimal, coach Chandika Hathurusinghe and manager Asanka Gurusinha have admitted to breaching Article 2.3.1, a Level 3 offence, which relates to “conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game”.

Following their admission, the ICC, in accordance with Article 5.2 of the ICC Code of Conduct, has appointed The Hon Michael Beloff QC as the Judicial Commissioner to hear the case to determine the appropriate sanction.

Mr Beloff has been appointed as the Judicial Commissioner to hear Mr Chandimal’s appeal against the match referee’s decision for changing the condition of the ball and, as per Article 5.2.3, will use Friday’s hearing in that appeal to hold a preliminary hearing to establish the procedural schedule on the Level 3 charges.

The three were charged by the ICC Chief Executive David Richardson on Tuesday for their involvement in the Sri Lankan cricket team’s refusal to take to the field in St Lucia at the start of Saturday’s play, which caused a two-hour delay in the start of play.

This action was alleged to amount to a serious breach of the Laws of Cricket and to be contrary to the spirit of the game.

All Level 3 breaches carry an imposition of between four and eight suspension points.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/748117

 

[hadi123]

JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER REJECTS CHANDIMAL’S APPEAL AND UPHOLDS MATCH REFEREE’S EARLIER DECISION

· Chandimal to miss third Test in Barbados; four demerit points to also stay on his disciplinary record

· Mr Beloff QC to hold hearing on 10 July to determine the appropriate sanction in respect of the admitted Level 3 charges

· Hathurusinghe and Gurusinha available to coach and manage Sri Lanka cricket team respectively for Barbados Test starting on Saturday

Judicial Commissioner, The Hon Michael Beloff QC, has dismissed Dinesh Chandimal’s appeal after the Sri Lanka captain was found guilty of changing the condition of the ball in breach of clause 41.3 of the ICC’s Standard Test Match Playing Conditions during the second day’s play in the second cricket Test against the Windies in St Lucia on Saturday. Mr Beloff’s written reasoned decision will be provided on Wednesday 27 June.

Accordingly, the original decision of the ICC Match Referee Mr Javagal Srinath, handing Chandimal the maximum punishment available under the code, i.e. two suspension points and a fine of 100 per cent of his match fee, will stand.

Chandimal will therefore miss the day/night Barbados Test, which commences on Saturday. Furthermore, and because two suspension points correspond to four demerit points, these will remain on Chandimal’s disciplinary record.

Mr Beloff QC, who is also the Chairman of the ICC Code of Conduct Commission, heard the appeal on Friday in a four-hour hearing in which both parties were represented by legal counsel.

In announcing his decision, Mr Beloff QC said: “I express my gratitude to all who, though located in four different places, London, Colombo. Dubai and Barbados, collaborated in enabling me to reach a decision in time for the third test between the West Indies and Sri Lanka.''

Meanwhile, Mr Beloff QC also held a preliminary hearing to establish the procedural schedule on the Level 3 charges after Chandimal, coach Chandika Hathurusinghe and manager Asanka Gurusinha admitted to breaching Article 2.3.1, which relates to “conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game”.

The preliminary hearing determined that the hearing will take place on 10 July by way of video/telephone conference, with the decision on sanction to follow.

Until the hearing takes place and Mr Beloff QC determines the appropriate sanctions for the Level 3 breaches, Mr Hathurusinghe and Mr Gurusinha can continue to perform their professional responsibilities, including in the Barbados Test.

All Level 3 breaches carry an imposition of between four and eight suspension points.

The three were charged by the ICC Chief Executive David Richardson on Tuesday for their involvement in the Sri Lanka cricket team’s refusal to take to the field in St Lucia at the start of Saturday’s play, which caused a two-hour delay in the start of play.

This action was alleged to amount to a serious breach of the Laws of Cricket and to be contrary to the spirit of the game.

 

[Sherlock]

Why even appeal in the first place?

It was obvious what he did

 

[MenInG]

Sri Lanka have made the uncommon move of appointing a fast bowler as captain, with paceman Suranga Lakmal to take the reins in Dinesh Chandimal's absence for the third Test against West Indies.

Chandimal was suspended for the Caribbean's maiden day-night Test match, which begins Saturday, after losing an appeal over ball-tampering charges.

That has forced Sri Lanka Cricket to find a new skipper for the landmark match, with 31-year-old quick Lakmal to become his nation's 16th Test captain.

The International Cricket Council upheld their guilty verdict after Chandimal was deemed to have "changed the condition of the ball" during the second Test in St Lucia.

Match referee Javagal Srinath had said the 28-year-old applied an artificial substance to the ball in violation of the ICC Code of Conduct.

Chandimal was handed two suspension points and fined 100 per cent of his match fee for the offence. The points equate to a ban from one Test or two ODIs or two T20s.

He was suspected of using saliva and a sweet that he had in his mouth to tamper with the ball. His action was picked up on television images.

Srinath also said that Chandimal had been less than convincing in his defence.

"During the hearing, Dinesh admitted to putting something in his mouth but couldn't remember what it was, which I found unconvincing as a defence," he said.

The third Test will be the first time Lakmal has captained Sri Lanka in any format.

The islanders have churned through skippers in recent times, having had seven different players take the reins over the past 24 months across all three formats.

A second ICC hearing meanwhile will take place on July 10 after Sri Lanka coach Chandika Hathurusinghe and manager Asanka Gurusinha, along with Chandimal, admitted to "conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game".

The three were charged by ICC chief executive David Richardson on Tuesday for their involvement in the Sri Lanka team's refusal to take to the field in St Lucia at the start of Saturday's play, which caused a two-hour delay in the start of play.

"Until the hearing takes place … Hathurusinghe and Gurusinha can continue to perform their professional responsibilities, including in the Barbados Test," the ICC said in a statement.

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/sur...ball-tampering-ban-icc-west-indies/2018-06-23

 

[cric_man]

Thank you [MENTION=77086]cric_man[/MENTION]. Looks like Chandimal is not the first.

English have used mints (was supposedly a big factor in their team finding reverse swing in '05 Ashes) https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/how-a-packet-of-mints-may-have-swung-the-ashes-320810.html

Du Plessis has been reprimanded for using sweets along with his zipper to tamper with th state of the ball.

 

[MenInG]

Mumbai, June 29 : Sri Lankan skipper Dinesh Chandimal had admitted before the ICC's Judicial Commissioner, the Hon. Michael Beloff QC. that he had in his pocket the Strepsils (a throat sweet) and almonds on the second day of the 2nd Test against West Indies on June 15.

He had Strepsils for therapeutic purpose and almonds for energy. He, however, could not recollect what he chewed on the field of play during the second Test against West Indies..

"Strepsil or almond - which it was for this purpose matters not", Mr. Beloff has noted in his report.

Subsequent to that occasion, the umpires inspected the ball during the tea interval, the times immediately after wickets fell, drinks breaks and at the close of play.

The Judicial Commissioner, in his 14-page report (a copy seen by this reporter) did not revoke Chandimal one Test suspension because (i) 42-second video footage of the incident said to constitute the Offence (ii) direct oral testimony by video-link from Chandimal himself.

The Judicial Commissioner also took into consideration the fact that the umpires had filed the report within 18 hours (third mid-day of the match), which was well within the stipulated time period.

"Nonetheless I am comfortably satisfied, that, despite his (Chandimal) denials, the Appellant’s actions said to constitute the Offence were deliberate. The indelible video footage was compulsive to my conclusion. This was not a case where I could sensibly determine that the Appellant’s left hand did not know what his right hand was doing (or vice versa)", it is noted in the report..

The captain and team manager / coach are certain to face questions from media on team's arrival on Saturday morning.

 

[Abdullah719]

Sri Lanka captain, coach and manager suspended for four ODIs along with two Tests

The independent Judicial Commissioner, The Hon Michael Beloff QC, today handed Sri Lanka captain Dinesh Chandimal, coach Chandika Hathurusinghe and manager Asanka Gurusinha eight suspension points, which means the trio have also been suspended for the first four ODIs along with both the Tests against South Africa.

The three were charged by the ICC Chief Executive David Richardson on 19 June and had pleaded guilty to breaching Level 3, Article 2.3.1, which relates to “conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game”, during last month’s St Lucia Test against the West Indies.

The Chairman of the ICC Code of Conduct Commission had held a hearing over video conference on Wednesday, 11 July, to determine the sanction, and, after more than six hours of hearing, which was attended by legal counsels of both the sides, had reserved his decision.

During the hearing, however, it was mutually agreed that, since the minimum sanction for a Level 3 offence was suspension from two Tests, the three will not participate in the Galle Test (played from 12-14 July) and Colombo Test (to be played from 20-24 July), and these will be credited against the sanction imposed by the Judicial Commissioner.

As eight suspension points equate to a ban from two Tests and four ODIs/T20Is or eight ODIs/T20Is, whatever comes first for the player or player support personnel, the Judicial Commissioner’s ruling means the three will also remain suspended for the Dambulla ODIs (29 July and 1 August) as well as the Kandy ODIs (5 and 8 August).

Furthermore, six demerit points each have been added to the disciplinary records of Chandimal, Hathurusinghe and Gurusinha.

While these are first offences for Hathurusinghe and Gurusinha, this is the second time Chandimal has been sanctioned since the introduction of the revised Code in September 2016. Chandimal received four demerit points for breaching Article 2.2.9 in the same Test, and, therefore, he now has 10 demerit points against his name.

All Level 3 breaches carry an imposition of between four and eight suspension points.

NOTES TO EDITORS

• Any suspension imposed for crossing the demerit point threshold will run concurrently with the suspension points and therefore the trio will not face any additional suspensions
• The suspension for Chandimal means he can neither be nominated as a substitute fielder nor can he enter any part of the playing area although he will be permitted to enter the player’s dressing room (providing it does not form part of the playing area)
• The suspension for Hathurusinghe and Gurusinha means they will be barred from entering the players’ dressing room and attending post-match ceremonies and presentations
• If Chandimal reaches 12 or more demerit points within a 24-month period, he will be suspended from either three Tests or 6 ODIs/T20Is or a combination thereof, whatever comes first for him
• The three had been charged by the ICC Chief Executive David Richardson on 19 June for their involvement in the Sri Lanka team’s refusal to take the field at the start of the third day’s play. This action was alleged to be a serious breach of the Laws of Cricket and contrary to the spirit of the game