India set in England 2014 July 29, 2014

India granted Jadeja appeal


Play 03:09

India have been allowed to appeal the guilty verdict against Ravindra Jadeja for his alleged role in the confrontation involving James Anderson on the second day of the Trent Bridge Test*. The ICC confirmed on Wednesday that it had accepted the request "after receiving legal submissions from the BCCI".

Jadeja, who was charged by England under a Level 2 offence but found guilty by match referee David Boon of a lesser Level 1 offence, had originally not been allowed an appeal.

The BCCI involved its lawyers, though, and Jadeja's appeal will now be heard alongside Anderson's Level 3 hearing on Friday August 1 - the day after the completion of the third Investec Test. Cricinfo understands one possible legal submission might have been that India have appealed against the original Level 2 charge and not the Level 1 sentence.

The judicial commissioner listening to Anderson's case, Gordon Lewis, will also oversee Jadeja's appeal via videoconference. India will have Jadeja, MS Dhoni, their physiotherapist Evan Speechly and their coach Duncan Fletcher at the hearing, along with their lawyers.

On July 25, Jadeja was fined 50% of his match fee after being found guilty by Boon. The BCCI immediately made public its dissatisfaction with the verdict and said it reserved the right to appeal. Dhoni also passionately defended his team-mate.

According to the ICC's appeals process, penalties for a Level 1 offence were non-appealable, unless it was a second such penalty levied on the player within a 12-month period. Jadeja had been docked 10 per cent of his match fee for using offensive language against Shane Watson in an ODI in November 2013, but that was under section 2.1.4 of the code, while this is a level 2.1.8 offence, meaning that an appeal was initially ruled as invalid.

The incident involving Anderson and Jadeja is reported to have taken place as the players were leaving the field for lunch on the second day of the Trent Bridge Test. India alleged Anderson abused and pushed Jadeja, while England countered by claiming that Jadeja turned and approached Anderson in a threatening manner.

* July 30, 1.30pm: Story updated with confirmation after ICC release

Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Roderick on July 30, 2014, 13:47 GMT

    So, no appeals on Level 1 'convictions" huh? Two rule books in operation here!

  • Hamish on July 30, 2014, 9:38 GMT

    I was somewhat taken aback by the fact the teams have the authority to decide the level of their complaint. Beyond the making of open accusations, in what other legal or pseudo-legal system does such a formalised situation exist? I also found it strange that the local, authorised representatives of the ICC (umpires and match referee) were able to be bypassed completely. Surely a more sensible approach would be for the complainants to make their case to the governing body, through the appropriate channels (umpires and match referee). In this model the match referee would be placed to decide if there is a case to answer, attempt to arbitrate locally for 'lower order' offences, and ultimately to pass a report and recommendations for further action to the ICC.

  • Dummy4 on July 30, 2014, 9:32 GMT

    An escalating mountain from an alleged molehill. I still think an apology and a handshake was (and remains) the best solution, given the conflicting accounts of what may or may not have occurred. India have too much power in the game (the refusal to use DRS is increasingly pathetic) while England are to much focused on income streams rather than focusing on what is best for the game (much the same could be said of Australia). For me cricket remains the best game, but it is being run by people around the world who couldn't care less...

  • xxxxxxxx on July 30, 2014, 9:19 GMT

    I thought India did not approve of Decision Review Systems.

  • Tom on July 30, 2014, 8:58 GMT

    Looks like the ICC may get the right result, but for the wrong reasons: the two charges should always have been dealt with by the same person at a single hearing.

  • Phil on July 30, 2014, 8:04 GMT

    whilst i don't understand the penalty and what that mean etc I don't know how India can possibly have the decision overturned as it is one players word against another

  • Dummy4 on July 30, 2014, 7:57 GMT

    Suppose Anderson is banned for 2 tests and England appeals against the decision. Will Anderson get to play the next test while the appeal's hearing is pending or not?

  • Android on July 30, 2014, 7:35 GMT

    Every person, under any Law, should be and must be allowed to appeal a ruling. Think of it like the on field umpire refering a runout decision to the third umpire. Let us let the aggrieved parties get their day in Court and let the due process happen to the satisfaction of both parties. Many feel that this issue has been blown out of proportion but if the alleged offences are charging in an intimidating fashion and pushing then surely it merits a disciplinary hearing. I think the issue is now of credibility where both sides give opposite accounts of what has actually transpired.

  • naeem on July 30, 2014, 7:24 GMT

    After putting Crown of 'Big Three' on their heads, this is the first time Two of the Big Three meet and they are already heading towards non-cricketing issues to promote the game known as Cricket.

  • cric on July 30, 2014, 7:07 GMT

    Not having a video is no excuse for body contact. There would be enough witnesses around including the security officers who are supposed to guard the players. Not every one will lie and cover the truth. A proper judicial enquiry should be able to ascertain what happened exactly when this incident took place.

  • No featured comments at the moment.