India in England 2014 July 16, 2014

Charges laid against Anderson after mediation failed

ESPNcricinfo staff

Play 09:27
Chappell: Administrators let on-field exchanges go too far

The Indian team's complaint against James Anderson over an alleged altercation with Ravindra Jadeja was brought to the ICC's notice on Friday, July 11, around 24 hours after the incident during the first Investec Test at Trent Bridge. On Tuesday, Anderson was charged with a Level 3 offence for allegedly "pushing and abusing" Jadeja on the second day of the Test.

The complaint by the Indians had suggested Level 3 charges against Anderson, which immediately put the matter outside the purview of match officials. The ICC was then required to study the situation in greater detail in order to ascertain whether the charges were valid.

Before formal charges were laid against Anderson, it is understood an ICC lawyer flew to England on Friday and spoke to both sides to see if the issue could be resolved. When that did not happen, the matter went through a legal process: on Sunday evening, the Indian team informed the England side that a Level 3 charge was being brought against Anderson and the formal "notice of charge" was issued on Tuesday. The ICC's judicial commissioner, who will hold a hearing on the matter, can be appointed only after the ECB formally replies to this "notice of charge".

Anderson faces a ban of at least two Tests if he is found guilty as the minimum sanction for a Level 3 violation is four suspension points and two points equates to missing one Test. He now faces a hearing, which according to the ICC code, needs to take place within 14 days. Anderson is the first player to be charged with a Level 3 offence in international cricket since Harbhajan Singh in 2008. Harbhajan was charged for making a racist comment against Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds, and was handed a three-match ban before eventually being docked 50% of his match fees as the charges were not proven.

The alleged incident between Anderson and Jadeja took place after the players left the field for lunch on the second day and it was reportedly a continuation of a verbal altercation between the two as they were walking off.

Anderson was charged under Article 2.3.3, which states: "Where the facts of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly covered by any of the above offences, conduct that either: (a) is contrary to the spirit of the game; or (b) brings the game into disrepute.

"Level 3 charges are referred to a Judicial Commissioner for adjudication," the ICC continued. "As such, where required under Article 5.2 of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel, the ICC will appoint a Judicial Commissioner who will hold a hearing as soon as reasonably practicable. These details will be announced in due course.

"All Level 3 breaches carry a penalty of between four and eight suspension points. Two suspension points equates to a ban of one Test, or two ODIs, depending on which type of match is scheduled next for the suspended player."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Daison on July 17, 2014, 9:22 GMT

    The players are human beings first. Not everybody can stand calmly and listen to the opposition players saying "things" about your father, mother, wife and children. There are instances when the very player talking about opposition player lose the temper when he gets answered with "quotes" about his family. Aggression is OK within the limits. By saying and doing uncalled things to the opposion player you are leaving yourself vulnerable to consequences. If the opponent lets it go, you are fine. But if the opponent decides to file a complaint, then you pay the price. Its in your control until you say or do it. Once its said or done, you are at his mercy. These players must know better and do things in his control better.

  • Rana on July 17, 2014, 9:00 GMT

    If you do the crime, then be ready to do the time...NO EXCUSES!!! Mr. Cookie seems to think that India has nothing better to do than make false accusations to gain an advantage??? ...because MS has a history of doing this, right? What a joke. Other than Australia, no other team sledges more than England...NO ONE!!! These are the times I thank god for BCCI.

  • Daison on July 17, 2014, 8:23 GMT

    Cook's position is baffling. "I wouldnt ask my player tone down on aggression, I like it when he behaves like that"!!!??? Really?? I dont think he would be saying the same thing if one of his player was the victim.

  • Arun on July 17, 2014, 8:15 GMT


    Make is short and fast Get ready in the slips

    are encouraging words.

    This guy has no clue.... This guy has more edges This guy doesn't know to use his bat....

    "This guy" is not the bowler and whoever is saying that has no business to goad the opposition (directly or indirectly). I do understand that far worse things are said in the heat of the moment and competitiveness but what I am objecting to is the deliberate use of sledging as a tactic in the game.

    Who has to police it? The umpires. They rely on technology for pretty much everything else - catches, LBWs, runouts, (even no balls for God's sake) but this is one thing they can do well. They can stomp the guy who has too much or too many things to say, too many times on the field. This unfortunately is not happening. These umpires have been so quiet for so many years that the players have dragged "the line of no control", far beyond what can deemed incendiary in local grade cricket.

  • Daison on July 17, 2014, 6:29 GMT

    Guess England players should have known better. Like Dhoni said, it used to be the case when "go and start something with an India player and when they retaliate, file a complaint against him". Now the table has turned. If England think Anderson is their key player, he should not start or involve in incidents like this. Thus he can avoid getting the ban. You cant have it both ways can you? Either let your cricket do the talking for you (like Cook suggested - a bit late though), or do the talking and go through the consequences.

  • rob on July 17, 2014, 4:19 GMT

    @ Herath-UK: "However one thing that has come clear is both Sri Lanka & India did not back down which was taken for granted in the past when they felt they were offended." .. Oh yes, that is abundantly clear. In fact, they seem to like making quite a point of it.

  • Uday on July 17, 2014, 1:38 GMT

    If indeed this incident can be verified by neutral folks, it is despicable and Anderson must be fined. It does not matter if someone thinks BCCI is throwing it's weight around or that there is a Chennai Super Kings connection between Dhoni & Jadeja. If the fact is that Anderson pushed Jadeja or worst still hit him, then it is an offence with clear consequences. Let's all remember that Harbhajan's squabble with Symonds was verbal and he was was still punished. If I am right that was the first level 3 offence brought to justice by the ICC.

    I don't understand why people are taking silly positions on this issue. There should be NO COMPROMISE with such behaviour!!

  • j on July 17, 2014, 1:22 GMT

    England is playing right into India's hands by trying to get Jadega banned :)

    If Anderson pushed or crossed physical line, he can apologize or given lesser punishment. Of course crossing a physical line is not acceptable . This is a boring series between 2 really boring captains. This might be the most exciting thing that will happen in the tour. My point being no one wants to watch this series w/o anderson.

  • David on July 16, 2014, 22:44 GMT

    Ban sledging? @switchmitch said this. But how to police? We Aussies call it "Encouraging the bowler" How do you stop players from saying o the bowler. "Make it short and fast. This guys got no idea." "Get ready in slips, This guys got more edges than a Rubiks Cube." "I don't know why hr brought his bat. Hes not using it.

  • vas on July 16, 2014, 15:15 GMT

    It will be boring without Anderson. Captains should try to sort it out for the sake of fans. Mountain out of mole hill, in my opinion.

  • No featured comments at the moment.