India in England 2014 August 6, 2014

ICC not to appeal Anderson verdict

ESPNcricinfo staff
15

Play 03:01
Agarkar: India should move on

The ICC has decided against appealing the not guilty verdict handed to James Anderson in the pushing case involving Ravindra Jadeja at Trent Bridge. It has also stressed that there is "no place in the game" for personal insults among players.

The Level 3 offence Anderson was charged with was heard on August 1 by judicial commissioner Gordon Lewis, who let him off citing a lack of video evidence and impartial testimony. The BCCI had requested the governing body to lodge an appeal, as only the chief executive David Richardson or the player concerned (had the verdict gone against him) can stake the claim. However, the ICC believes the dispute has been investigated thoroughly and an appeal would serve no purpose.

"This outcome is the result of two exhaustive and thorough disciplinary processes and, after considering the written decision, the ICC is satisfied with the manner in which the decisions have been reached," Richardson said.

"The disciplinary procedures were robust and transparent and all parties had ample opportunity to ask questions, test the evidence and make submissions. We have determined that there is no merit in an appeal and that it would not be in the best interest of the sport to take such action.

"It was a complicated and sensitive matter relating to charges brought against two players at different levels of the ICC Code of Conduct. There appears to have been vastly conflicting evidence on both sides, with a total of 13 witnesses who gave testimony. After carefully considering the decision by Gordon Lewis, whose vast experience was invaluable to the process over recent weeks, we believe that no further purpose would be served by prolonging the process through further appeal proceedings."

On the use of offensive language, Richardson said: "International cricket is tough, competitive and uncompromising but we must reiterate that there is no place in the game for the use of offensive language that is personally insulting of one player by another.

"It is imperative that all captains, players and coaches as well as umpires and referees are reminded of and do not shirk their responsibility to one another and to the game."

Read the full text of the judicial commissioner's verdict here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • PeerieTrow on August 7, 2014, 8:14 GMT

    @indianzen: You say, "If English can play and talk, they would not have lost the ashes so badly..." I have no idea what that means.

  • on August 6, 2014, 18:29 GMT

    just wondering where was virat kohli that time...I m sure then it would have been england as complaining team..

  • indianzen on August 6, 2014, 18:12 GMT

    If English can play and talk, they would not have lost the ashes so badly...

  • indianzen on August 6, 2014, 18:12 GMT

    Poor England, looking for tactics off the field to affect the tourists. I see this really as a lack of leadership to control the players and get them concentrated on the game. We knew what happened in the recently concluded Ashes. If English can play and talk, they would not have lost the ashes so badly...

  • RayMcCooney on August 6, 2014, 18:01 GMT

    @RSVig: You say, "Anderson and the rest of the England team are role models and they should behave accordingly." Is Dhoni constantly asking the same question of somebody else in search of the answer he wants a good example?

  • on August 6, 2014, 17:24 GMT

    Irrespective of the decision, the way the entire thing handled looked stupid.

    Now when we have two players complaining against each other why two separate hearings for them ? (This Level 1, Level 2 etc is ok when only one player is involved, but when it is between two players, the hearings should be combined and not separate). Now you see, the Match Referee handing out the penalty for the aggrieved party and some other person in some other corner of planet releases the accused.

    Ideally the situation should have been settled by the Match Refree itself. If he had found evidence to punish Jadeja, may be he would have used the same yardstick to punish Anderson too (atleast theoretically, I don't know how Mr. Boon would have acted, when he has to hear from both)

    Any case India has a point to be aggrieved because even after admitting guilt, the accused goes free. And the victim gets punished (even though it is rescinded) .

  • RSVig on August 6, 2014, 17:16 GMT

    It is disappointing to see that Anderson was not punished for his colourful language. Does this now mean that school boys and club cricketers as well as test players can now use such vulgar language in a cricket match. If it is good enough for the goose than it should be good enough for the gander.. The ECB should have come out with stronger language to condemn Anderson's colourful language. Anderson and the rest of the England team are role models and they should behave accordingly.

  • Coolcapricorn on August 6, 2014, 16:46 GMT

    As suggested by Ashley Giles, hopefully someone like Paul Downton or Peter Moores has sat with Anderson & had a frank discussion between them to ensure the crudity of Anderson's language against Jadeja at Nottingham is never repeated. Such abusive language not only leads to more serious physical altercations between players as seen but also sets a poor example to kids following the game who see players like Anderson as role models.

  • on August 6, 2014, 14:37 GMT

    Thanks all you guys who are looking forward for good crickrt test match

  • Mr_Anonymous on August 6, 2014, 14:03 GMT

    If this leads to more scrutiny of on-field behaviour and includes video taping all players until they leave the ground and reach their respective dressing room, this would be a welcome change. Far too many of these incidents are happening on the ground and as players walk off. And for England (where Test cricket is more widely followed than in most other parts of the world) to think that this is a gentleman's game and exhibit/justify this on-field behaviour is just inconsistent. I also do not understand the reluctance of the broadcasting stations to not turn up the mike volume and record the sledging and verbal abuse on the field. I am not saying that they should broadcast it right away, however, some expert or panel member needs to listen to the most extreme ones and then play them on air during a break. The only way players will stop this behaviour is if it affects their reputation or image since it will indirectly affect their earnings (through endorsements) at some point.

  • PeerieTrow on August 7, 2014, 8:14 GMT

    @indianzen: You say, "If English can play and talk, they would not have lost the ashes so badly..." I have no idea what that means.

  • on August 6, 2014, 18:29 GMT

    just wondering where was virat kohli that time...I m sure then it would have been england as complaining team..

  • indianzen on August 6, 2014, 18:12 GMT

    If English can play and talk, they would not have lost the ashes so badly...

  • indianzen on August 6, 2014, 18:12 GMT

    Poor England, looking for tactics off the field to affect the tourists. I see this really as a lack of leadership to control the players and get them concentrated on the game. We knew what happened in the recently concluded Ashes. If English can play and talk, they would not have lost the ashes so badly...

  • RayMcCooney on August 6, 2014, 18:01 GMT

    @RSVig: You say, "Anderson and the rest of the England team are role models and they should behave accordingly." Is Dhoni constantly asking the same question of somebody else in search of the answer he wants a good example?

  • on August 6, 2014, 17:24 GMT

    Irrespective of the decision, the way the entire thing handled looked stupid.

    Now when we have two players complaining against each other why two separate hearings for them ? (This Level 1, Level 2 etc is ok when only one player is involved, but when it is between two players, the hearings should be combined and not separate). Now you see, the Match Referee handing out the penalty for the aggrieved party and some other person in some other corner of planet releases the accused.

    Ideally the situation should have been settled by the Match Refree itself. If he had found evidence to punish Jadeja, may be he would have used the same yardstick to punish Anderson too (atleast theoretically, I don't know how Mr. Boon would have acted, when he has to hear from both)

    Any case India has a point to be aggrieved because even after admitting guilt, the accused goes free. And the victim gets punished (even though it is rescinded) .

  • RSVig on August 6, 2014, 17:16 GMT

    It is disappointing to see that Anderson was not punished for his colourful language. Does this now mean that school boys and club cricketers as well as test players can now use such vulgar language in a cricket match. If it is good enough for the goose than it should be good enough for the gander.. The ECB should have come out with stronger language to condemn Anderson's colourful language. Anderson and the rest of the England team are role models and they should behave accordingly.

  • Coolcapricorn on August 6, 2014, 16:46 GMT

    As suggested by Ashley Giles, hopefully someone like Paul Downton or Peter Moores has sat with Anderson & had a frank discussion between them to ensure the crudity of Anderson's language against Jadeja at Nottingham is never repeated. Such abusive language not only leads to more serious physical altercations between players as seen but also sets a poor example to kids following the game who see players like Anderson as role models.

  • on August 6, 2014, 14:37 GMT

    Thanks all you guys who are looking forward for good crickrt test match

  • Mr_Anonymous on August 6, 2014, 14:03 GMT

    If this leads to more scrutiny of on-field behaviour and includes video taping all players until they leave the ground and reach their respective dressing room, this would be a welcome change. Far too many of these incidents are happening on the ground and as players walk off. And for England (where Test cricket is more widely followed than in most other parts of the world) to think that this is a gentleman's game and exhibit/justify this on-field behaviour is just inconsistent. I also do not understand the reluctance of the broadcasting stations to not turn up the mike volume and record the sledging and verbal abuse on the field. I am not saying that they should broadcast it right away, however, some expert or panel member needs to listen to the most extreme ones and then play them on air during a break. The only way players will stop this behaviour is if it affects their reputation or image since it will indirectly affect their earnings (through endorsements) at some point.

  • fwd079 on August 6, 2014, 10:09 GMT

    Thank Heavens! Can now *finally* move on to next game tomorrow please?

  • Wenwynwynren on August 6, 2014, 10:05 GMT

    Common sense prevails at last. All parties should reflect and move on. Looking forward to some cricket tomorrow.

  • Balladeer on August 6, 2014, 10:04 GMT

    Sense is seen. Anybody taking one look at the judgement can see that a full and thorough verdict was given under exceptionally unclear circumstances. If change is to happen, it must start on-field with the umpires, or alternatively with the ICC regulations.

    Glad that this has been sorted out prior to the fourth test too. Hopefully the last two can go ahead with no off-field distractions. With the score tied at 1-1, it's all to play for.

  • sasisurineni on August 6, 2014, 10:03 GMT

    Good without exaggerating much both teams can concentrate on the game. Hope to see tough figh in 4th test in old trafford.

  • vish57 on August 6, 2014, 9:55 GMT

    In the interest of game of cricket, let both India and England stop this issue and concentrate on the game of cricket.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • vish57 on August 6, 2014, 9:55 GMT

    In the interest of game of cricket, let both India and England stop this issue and concentrate on the game of cricket.

  • sasisurineni on August 6, 2014, 10:03 GMT

    Good without exaggerating much both teams can concentrate on the game. Hope to see tough figh in 4th test in old trafford.

  • Balladeer on August 6, 2014, 10:04 GMT

    Sense is seen. Anybody taking one look at the judgement can see that a full and thorough verdict was given under exceptionally unclear circumstances. If change is to happen, it must start on-field with the umpires, or alternatively with the ICC regulations.

    Glad that this has been sorted out prior to the fourth test too. Hopefully the last two can go ahead with no off-field distractions. With the score tied at 1-1, it's all to play for.

  • Wenwynwynren on August 6, 2014, 10:05 GMT

    Common sense prevails at last. All parties should reflect and move on. Looking forward to some cricket tomorrow.

  • fwd079 on August 6, 2014, 10:09 GMT

    Thank Heavens! Can now *finally* move on to next game tomorrow please?

  • Mr_Anonymous on August 6, 2014, 14:03 GMT

    If this leads to more scrutiny of on-field behaviour and includes video taping all players until they leave the ground and reach their respective dressing room, this would be a welcome change. Far too many of these incidents are happening on the ground and as players walk off. And for England (where Test cricket is more widely followed than in most other parts of the world) to think that this is a gentleman's game and exhibit/justify this on-field behaviour is just inconsistent. I also do not understand the reluctance of the broadcasting stations to not turn up the mike volume and record the sledging and verbal abuse on the field. I am not saying that they should broadcast it right away, however, some expert or panel member needs to listen to the most extreme ones and then play them on air during a break. The only way players will stop this behaviour is if it affects their reputation or image since it will indirectly affect their earnings (through endorsements) at some point.

  • on August 6, 2014, 14:37 GMT

    Thanks all you guys who are looking forward for good crickrt test match

  • Coolcapricorn on August 6, 2014, 16:46 GMT

    As suggested by Ashley Giles, hopefully someone like Paul Downton or Peter Moores has sat with Anderson & had a frank discussion between them to ensure the crudity of Anderson's language against Jadeja at Nottingham is never repeated. Such abusive language not only leads to more serious physical altercations between players as seen but also sets a poor example to kids following the game who see players like Anderson as role models.

  • RSVig on August 6, 2014, 17:16 GMT

    It is disappointing to see that Anderson was not punished for his colourful language. Does this now mean that school boys and club cricketers as well as test players can now use such vulgar language in a cricket match. If it is good enough for the goose than it should be good enough for the gander.. The ECB should have come out with stronger language to condemn Anderson's colourful language. Anderson and the rest of the England team are role models and they should behave accordingly.

  • on August 6, 2014, 17:24 GMT

    Irrespective of the decision, the way the entire thing handled looked stupid.

    Now when we have two players complaining against each other why two separate hearings for them ? (This Level 1, Level 2 etc is ok when only one player is involved, but when it is between two players, the hearings should be combined and not separate). Now you see, the Match Referee handing out the penalty for the aggrieved party and some other person in some other corner of planet releases the accused.

    Ideally the situation should have been settled by the Match Refree itself. If he had found evidence to punish Jadeja, may be he would have used the same yardstick to punish Anderson too (atleast theoretically, I don't know how Mr. Boon would have acted, when he has to hear from both)

    Any case India has a point to be aggrieved because even after admitting guilt, the accused goes free. And the victim gets punished (even though it is rescinded) .