ICC news June 25, 2013

ICC to ask members to adopt stronger anti-corruption laws


The ICC's anti-corruption and security unit (ACSU) is likely to recommend that its members adopt stronger anti-corruption laws to prosecute players, match-officials and franchise owners found guilty of corrupt practices in domestic Twenty20 leagues. Sir Ronnie Flannagan, the chairman of the ACSU, is expected to address these concerns during ICC's annual conference, which begins at the Lord's cricket ground today.

Flannagan is expected to highlight the threats and challenges, and give recommendations to ICC members on how to curb the dangers of corruption. These concerns come in the wake of various corruption crises that have taken place in the last year, exposing the loosely-fit anti-corruption mechanisms that are used in lucrative domestic T20 leagues like the Indian Premier League (IPL), Bangladesh Premier League (BPL) and the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL).

In May, three IPL players, including the Indian fast bowler Sreesanth, were arrested for their alleged involvement in spot-fixing. A franchise owner, Gurunath Meiyappan, was also arrested for alleged involvement in betting a few days later. In Bangladesh, Mohammad Ashraful confessed to indulging in corrupt practices during the BPL. Last year, the news channel, India TV, carried out a sting operation in which match officials were caught on video agreeing to divulge information.

However, the Indian judicial system has no specific law yet to deal with corruption in sport and the ACSU fears this might allow perpetrators to get way easily. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka also face the same issue and culprits cannot be held under criminal offence in the absence of relevant laws. Hence, Flannagan is likely to recommend that members, and the three countries in particular, ask their federal governments to institute a law to discourage people from getting involved in corrupt practices and corrupt elements.

One of the other important issues likely to come up for discussion is the decision on the venue for next year's World Twenty20, scheduled between March 16 and April 6 in Bangladesh. Recently the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) raised a red flag on the delay in setting up proper infrastructure to meet the original deadline set by the ICC. BCB president Nazmul Hasan, who went public with his displeasure over the slow work at two of the four venues, is likely to address the ICC board on this matter. The members are likely to discuss options - from setting new timelines or conducting further inspections to moving the tournament to another country as a viable alternative.

The five-day annual conference begins with the Associate and Affiliate Members' meeting (June 25), chief executives' committee meeting (25-26), governance review committee, finance and commercial affairs committee, and the HR and remuneration committee meetings (June 27-28). These will be followed by the annual conference on June 28 before the two-day ICC Development International board meetings on June 28 and 29.

One of the main items on the agenda at the chief executives' committee (CEC) meeting is an assessment of the decisions recently taken by the Anil Kumble-led Cricket Committee. The new ODI rules - which were rolled out last October and include fielding restrictions and the use of two new balls - have been accepted with skepticism by some countries. India captain MS Dhoni had stated, before the Champions Trophy, that the rules were a big challenge. The cricket committee had decided to observe how teams fared during the Champions Trophy before debating on whether the new rules needed to be modified or carried forward till the 2015 World Cup.

Kumble's committee was also concerned about the members ignoring the ICC's Future Tours Programme and sacrificing Tests to accommodate more ODIs or T20s. The CEC is expected to discuss how best to maintain a balance between all three formats. The Cricket Committee had earlier suggested that members play a minimum number of Tests across a four-year period to protect the format.

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Ajith Prasad on June 27, 2013, 10:37 GMT

    No need to ask all members, asking India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will do :-)

  • Ali on June 27, 2013, 6:41 GMT

    Why cant ODIs be cut down to a 40-over per side match?... And a mandatory powerplay of 1-15 overs will be enough. 4 fielders outside in non-powerplay overs and 2 new balls will also be OK in this case. I would also like to see 2 reviews per innings for batting and bowling side.

  • Altaf on June 27, 2013, 6:20 GMT

    rule for free hit still seem to be joke. When no-ball itself is like freehit and not taken in account, what is need for free hit ? 2 bouncers in a over in ODI also seem to be exaggeration. They also need not to allow batsman or umpire for review of no ball after wicker falls as it is used on almost all wickets in crucial situations. ICC also need to allow teams like Ireland, Keyna to play more international cricket and also should allow Bangladesh in Champions trophy. They need to indulge in fixing scandal in IPL and its their duty to ask Srinivasan strictly.

  • ANAND on June 26, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    I like the idea floated around here about the third umpire overturning virtually any decision of the on-field umpire. And to make sure time is not wasted, the batsman can be brought back immediately after the third umpire rules in favor of the batsman. This would mean that the new batsman who came in and faced a few balls will have to go back to the pavilion. In case the third umpire rules in favor of the fielding team, the subsequent runs scored by that "dismissed" batsman will stay but will count towards the next batsman who will come in.

    Technology meanwhile should be improved so that the third umpire can use it quickly and efficiently to give out a decision to the on-field umpire in time before the next delivery is bowled.

  • Dummy4 on June 26, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    way to go!!hope it is the beginning of a new era!!


  • Fahad on June 26, 2013, 10:10 GMT

    If everyone stops playing certain countries, the corruption will stop automatically. We demand brutal punishment for corruption, whether it's a cricketer or a rich guy or both.

  • Dummy4 on June 26, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    Please allow the third umpire to call back an on-field umpire to change his decision ,that way so many howlers can be removed. If time is such a huge constraint then allow the wrongly given out batsman to come back at the fall of the next wicket...that wont create any problems at all.(Since he wasnt out at first place).If wrongly given not out,then the third umpire can call back the on-field umpire to wait for 30 secs(not a huge time in a n 8-hour match) for his call.The skill of a captain to review a decision or not isnt a cricketing skill.its a vague assumption as the captain is in an even worse position than the on-field umpire to make a call.Also the bowlers/batsmen lose out on opportunity to prevent howlers due to captain's mistake.....again an unfair situation.

  • Sriram on June 26, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    @Anil Kumble - As much as i respect you, its nothing but hypocrisy on your side to complain about boards swapping T20s and ODIs for Tests. Do you even know about the ongoing debate between BCCI and NZC? They are planning for a 1 test 2 ODI series or even 2 ODI and 2 T20 no tests campaign. Whom are you guys kidding?

  • Rakesh on June 26, 2013, 6:46 GMT

    We dont need DRS if the thrid umpire is given power to overturn bad decisions. Why should a team be penalised for using up its reviews if it takes a few wrong calls. If the purpose of the system is to eliminate umpiring errors I do not see the reason fo r implimenting what I suggested. It can be easily done when the batsman is walking back to pavilion. If not call him back. What is wrong in that? Not like he has flown home. BCCI can not object to this.

  • Satish Chandar on June 26, 2013, 6:16 GMT

    DRS.. Let ICC come up with a model where the sponsors will e identified for DRS. It is not ideal for ICC to look upon one single board to bear all the cost which is not going to reward the board in most case.. Or look at cost effective modes of implementing uniform DRS.. Till ICC comes to a conclusion on what to do, there is no use in discussing about DRS.

    No regular changes to ODI format. What it is now is good for the game.

    Uniform number of games for top 8 teams per year. And of course, all teams play all teams in 4 years span and each test series consists of atleast 3 games. Bilateral ODI series to be converted to 3-4 team tournaments.

    As for corruption, What ICC should do is, let the players to complain to the ACSU and make the deals offered public.. To reduce corruption, it is the only way.. Making the news public so that a clear message is sent to the bookies that if they approach players, they might end up in front page soon..