Champions Trophy 2013 June 10, 2013

Ramdin suspended for two ODIs

ESPNcricinfo staff
73

West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin has been suspended for two ODIs, and fined 100% of his match fees, for breaching the Code of Conduct when he claimed a catch off Misbah-ul-Haq during the Champions Trophy game against Pakistan at The Oval.

Ramdin has decided not to appeal the decision, a West Indies team spokesperson told ESPNcricinfo, which means he will miss their last two group matches against India and South Africa.*

"This is regarded as a serious offence as it is the responsibility of all players to act in the spirit of the game," ICC match referee Chris Broad said. "I hope Mr Ramdin has learnt his lesson from this incident and that we will not see such behaviour by him or any player in the future."

The incident took place in the ninth over of Pakistan's innings, when Misbah bottom-edged a Kemar Roach delivery to Ramdin. The wicketkeeper initially appeared to have caught the ball but lost control of it as he fell forward, and it slipped out of his gloves on to the grass. Instead of bringing his mistake to the notice of the umpires or his team-mates, Ramdin returned the ball to the square-leg umpire and joined his team-mates in the celebratory huddle.

Square-leg umpire Nigel Llong, however, alerted the third umpire and the replay revealed the chance had been dropped. Misbah, who was on 0, was called back and went on to hit an unbeaten 96.

Misbah had said that Ramdin's actions were not in the spirit of the game. "What can I say about that?" he said when asked about the catch. "I think he should have told them what happened, but I don't know what he was thinking at that time. I would not be very happy if my wicketkeeper did that. If we don't know anything, then it's fine, but if you know clearly that it's not a catch, you should not claim that because it's not in the spirit of the game."

West Indies captain Dwayne Bravo, however, had defended Ramdin, saying the wicketkeeper did not act deliberately. "Unfortunately, he did not catch it," Bravo said. "He's a very honest player, and as I said, history shows if you check the records that we don't have any stigma or negatives around us as a team. We have been true in our cricket careers and history has shown that we play the game in true spirit of the way it should be played. I don't think we did something like this deliberately."

The charge - under article 2.2.11 of the ICC Code of Conduct which relates to "conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game" - was laid by the on-field umpires Steve Davis and Llong, third umpire Tony Hill and fourth umpire Richard Kettleborough. Ramdin had pleaded not guilty and attended a hearing adjudicated by Broad on Monday.

*1915 GMT This article was updated to mention that Ramdin was not going to appeal the ban and fine.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Wakenaam1103 on June 11, 2013, 9:20 GMT

    I remember once Rohan Kanhai taking a catch in the slips off Colin Cowdrey. Cowdrey was walking when Kanhai went to the umpire and told him he had grassed it. Cowdrey was called back. Those were the good old days.

  • Narkovian on June 10, 2013, 17:56 GMT

    I am not the first to say this. But the more I think about it, those who said it before me are right. I don't condone cheating. But what is the difference between what Ramdin did and a batsman who pretends he didn't hit the ball, when he knows he did. If a batsman appeals against an umpires decision on the off chance that the "hot spot" didn't pick up the nick, and then is found to have got a thick edge, then perhaps he too should be cited for cheating. I know from playing the game for 20 odd years that a batsman always (99.9%) when he has hit the ball.

  • Doublejay on June 13, 2013, 11:55 GMT

    Two things here: 1. Does anyopne know how long you need to hold on to a ball before it is deemed a catch? 2. The so "called spirit of the game". Is there clear guidelines or is it open to interpretation? For example what consitutes to not being in "the spirit of the Game"? Sledging, Balll tampering, kicking the ball at other players, Falling to walk knowing full well you edged the ball. To be fair, why not let Umpires/referees make decisions just like in other sports. I do not believe appealling for a catch is such a bad crime that warrants a two match ban.

  • roversgate on June 12, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    I dont think a batsmen nicking it and a fieldsman dropping a catch can be considered the same. When batsmen nick it, they wait for umpire, it's not like they point to the pad saying they didn't nick it. If in fact, it's obvious that the batsmen nicked it and he insists that it went off the pad, then ya he deserves the same punishment as Ramdin. I should also add that the punishment to Ramdin was way too harsh. Against the spirit of the game shouldn't result in a match ban, the fines are wholly justified though. I consider bans to be appropriate only upon multiple breaches of the spirit of the game.

  • nitewatchman_zzz on June 12, 2013, 0:45 GMT

    Anyone suggesting Ramdin might not have realized he dropped the catch should watch the replay on YouTube. As he gets up from his dive he actually picks the ball of the ground and tosses it towards the square leg ump. Impossible that he didn't know he'd fumbled it, else how come the ball wasn't in his gloves?!

    That's also a critical difference with batsmen who nick a catch but don't walk. Unlike Ramdin's case there is no similarly clear indication to show whether a batsmen actually knows that he has nicked the ball. In Ramdin's case it's obvious he knew. If there was a way to tell if a batsman knows he has nicked the ball and hasn't walked he should also get a similar penalty.

    Bravo's comments reflect badly on him as a captain. As a national captain and senior player it'd be good to hear him upholding good sportsmanship above defending his team-mate when he has clearly made a mistake.

  • delboy on June 11, 2013, 20:06 GMT

    Players committing worst offences are now KNIGHTED so there is hope for Ramdin to redeem himself. Just get him a stint at either Somerset or Durham and put him out to GRASS...

  • redmanmorales on June 11, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    I am not saying that what ramdin did was right but we should remember that batsmen don't go to the umpire and report that they did in fact edge the ball or that it hit their gloves when they are ajudged not out it those cases

  • Kod. on June 11, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    Hi I totally agree with Narkovian... This is really double standards. A batsman can stand at his crease after nicking the ball but the keeper gets penalized for a catch he thought he caught. This code of conduct needs to change or same should apply to a batsman. I can name so many players that stood at their crease after they nicked the ball like nothing ever happened. In the heat of the moment we all think we are correct unless otherwise we are proven incorrect.

  • CricketFan365 on June 11, 2013, 12:31 GMT

    If all the players have to make all the decisions whether they are out or not, then what is the necessary of on field umpires? However, for the limitation of eyesight umpires cannot be always certain whether a catch is clean or not even with the help of cameras. Imagine where there is no camera on the filed and a fielder takes a diving near the boundary, how can the umpires be certain about the catch when they failed to do so in 30 yards in that match. Umpires do need assistance from the players when it comes to catching, otherwise the game will be even more dirtier. 100 % players know had they lost control over the ball.

    @Narkovian what about that 0.1%, should he also be banned? Rules have to be fair for everyone.

  • dalboy12 on June 11, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    So a batsman nicking it now and not walking is going to be banned? Especially when DRS is being used and batsman can no longer use the 'good and bad decisions even out in the end' argument. If reviews are used properly then the batsman shouldn't have to walk off knowing they inside edged that LBW or clearly missed that caught behind. But we still see batsman quite happy to stand there knowing they nicked it but trying to see if hotspot may have missed it. To me, I see little difference between that and what Ramdin did. Both are wrong, both look bad on TV, but unfortunately both are part of modern cricket.

  • Wakenaam1103 on June 11, 2013, 9:20 GMT

    I remember once Rohan Kanhai taking a catch in the slips off Colin Cowdrey. Cowdrey was walking when Kanhai went to the umpire and told him he had grassed it. Cowdrey was called back. Those were the good old days.

  • Narkovian on June 10, 2013, 17:56 GMT

    I am not the first to say this. But the more I think about it, those who said it before me are right. I don't condone cheating. But what is the difference between what Ramdin did and a batsman who pretends he didn't hit the ball, when he knows he did. If a batsman appeals against an umpires decision on the off chance that the "hot spot" didn't pick up the nick, and then is found to have got a thick edge, then perhaps he too should be cited for cheating. I know from playing the game for 20 odd years that a batsman always (99.9%) when he has hit the ball.

  • Doublejay on June 13, 2013, 11:55 GMT

    Two things here: 1. Does anyopne know how long you need to hold on to a ball before it is deemed a catch? 2. The so "called spirit of the game". Is there clear guidelines or is it open to interpretation? For example what consitutes to not being in "the spirit of the Game"? Sledging, Balll tampering, kicking the ball at other players, Falling to walk knowing full well you edged the ball. To be fair, why not let Umpires/referees make decisions just like in other sports. I do not believe appealling for a catch is such a bad crime that warrants a two match ban.

  • roversgate on June 12, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    I dont think a batsmen nicking it and a fieldsman dropping a catch can be considered the same. When batsmen nick it, they wait for umpire, it's not like they point to the pad saying they didn't nick it. If in fact, it's obvious that the batsmen nicked it and he insists that it went off the pad, then ya he deserves the same punishment as Ramdin. I should also add that the punishment to Ramdin was way too harsh. Against the spirit of the game shouldn't result in a match ban, the fines are wholly justified though. I consider bans to be appropriate only upon multiple breaches of the spirit of the game.

  • nitewatchman_zzz on June 12, 2013, 0:45 GMT

    Anyone suggesting Ramdin might not have realized he dropped the catch should watch the replay on YouTube. As he gets up from his dive he actually picks the ball of the ground and tosses it towards the square leg ump. Impossible that he didn't know he'd fumbled it, else how come the ball wasn't in his gloves?!

    That's also a critical difference with batsmen who nick a catch but don't walk. Unlike Ramdin's case there is no similarly clear indication to show whether a batsmen actually knows that he has nicked the ball. In Ramdin's case it's obvious he knew. If there was a way to tell if a batsman knows he has nicked the ball and hasn't walked he should also get a similar penalty.

    Bravo's comments reflect badly on him as a captain. As a national captain and senior player it'd be good to hear him upholding good sportsmanship above defending his team-mate when he has clearly made a mistake.

  • delboy on June 11, 2013, 20:06 GMT

    Players committing worst offences are now KNIGHTED so there is hope for Ramdin to redeem himself. Just get him a stint at either Somerset or Durham and put him out to GRASS...

  • redmanmorales on June 11, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    I am not saying that what ramdin did was right but we should remember that batsmen don't go to the umpire and report that they did in fact edge the ball or that it hit their gloves when they are ajudged not out it those cases

  • Kod. on June 11, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    Hi I totally agree with Narkovian... This is really double standards. A batsman can stand at his crease after nicking the ball but the keeper gets penalized for a catch he thought he caught. This code of conduct needs to change or same should apply to a batsman. I can name so many players that stood at their crease after they nicked the ball like nothing ever happened. In the heat of the moment we all think we are correct unless otherwise we are proven incorrect.

  • CricketFan365 on June 11, 2013, 12:31 GMT

    If all the players have to make all the decisions whether they are out or not, then what is the necessary of on field umpires? However, for the limitation of eyesight umpires cannot be always certain whether a catch is clean or not even with the help of cameras. Imagine where there is no camera on the filed and a fielder takes a diving near the boundary, how can the umpires be certain about the catch when they failed to do so in 30 yards in that match. Umpires do need assistance from the players when it comes to catching, otherwise the game will be even more dirtier. 100 % players know had they lost control over the ball.

    @Narkovian what about that 0.1%, should he also be banned? Rules have to be fair for everyone.

  • dalboy12 on June 11, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    So a batsman nicking it now and not walking is going to be banned? Especially when DRS is being used and batsman can no longer use the 'good and bad decisions even out in the end' argument. If reviews are used properly then the batsman shouldn't have to walk off knowing they inside edged that LBW or clearly missed that caught behind. But we still see batsman quite happy to stand there knowing they nicked it but trying to see if hotspot may have missed it. To me, I see little difference between that and what Ramdin did. Both are wrong, both look bad on TV, but unfortunately both are part of modern cricket.

  • SNIFFLEATHER on June 11, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    One can't erase the image of screaming, leaping fielders from the sub-continent bawling in the face of an umpire...despite the fact that the batsman has merely executed a perfect forward defensive. Hardly "in the spirit of the game", is it...?

  • YorkshirePudding on June 11, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @Sakthiivel, I think this is because the keeper knew hed dropped the catch and didnt tell the umpires but continued to claim the catch.

    Thankfully the umpires asked for confirmation via the replay to make sure of what happened, and in the End Ramdin knew hed dropped the ball, but continued to claim the catch, that is 100% against the spirit of the game, and so the fine was well deserved.

  • Sakthiivel on June 11, 2013, 8:18 GMT

    Will the same punishment given to Aussie or Brit the mistake was done.No way only Asian and WI teams get these kindof punishment

  • Metro-ant on June 11, 2013, 6:42 GMT

    Australia during its hey day of sledging never got the sort of punishments teams like the Asian countries and the Windies receive now and Chris Broad knows that. Even the way he has said it in such a condescending way "I hope Mr Ramdin has learnt his lesson" even though this sort of behaviour should not be condoned, not walking when you know you've knicked it is just as bad. He gives the Galle curators a warning after spin bowlers dominated the test match between SL and Aus while when SA played Aus in Cape Town and Australia were bowled out for 47 on a surface that looked more like one seen at Wimbledon, Chris Broad is silent...

  • rengumangu on June 11, 2013, 4:52 GMT

    The Funniest thing is Mr Chris Broad....So famous for his on-field behavior is throughout his career is adjudicating this...

  • rickeap on June 11, 2013, 4:45 GMT

    What a ridiculous penalty. Will batsman now be penalised if they snick the ball and don't walk?

  • SubhoGangulian on June 11, 2013, 4:37 GMT

    Its really very unfair to ramdin and windies.....this shows that rule is not same for all the teams....

  • DilumSL on June 11, 2013, 4:16 GMT

    come on this is a joke.... these things happen in the game. of course he should have inform that to the umpires. sometimes it's even hard for the fielder to say that the catch is clean. even he did it on purpose(as in this case) can't blame him. definitely these things affect spirit of the game. but with all this review thing, (i'm not going against the review system) and players are always trying to win it's really hard to stop these things. but suspending Ramdin that is ridiculous. Then what about the batsmen who do not walk in tip catches. We saw that recently with Nathen Mccullum and Tim Southee. Why are they not punished and SL players appealing for every thing. that is also something can accept

  • Mikewat1304 on June 11, 2013, 3:54 GMT

    Modern day cricket is full of players who display bad sportsmanship. The batsmen simple do not walk when they, and everybody else know when they nicked the ball, either through to the keeper or bat-pad. Gone are the days where we will see batsmen walk. There are a precious few, Kallis and Tendulkar for example. That being said, this could be a blessing for WI. Johnson Charles can now keep wicket while they can pick another player. Maybe another batsman or Sammy. India will not be a walk in the part.

  • satishchandar on June 11, 2013, 2:40 GMT

    Honestly, he just thought he had it in control.. Where does cheating come into picture in this case? It just went to third umpire and he gave the correct decision.. I feel the stuff should have ended there.. Llong just should have went to the third umpire when the fielder is a bit not convinced that he didnt have control over the ball for enough time.. Atleast, it will be satisfying for the fielder right? Llong should have gone to third umpire directly is my opinion..

    May be, the offense Ramdin committed was not to plead guilty to the officials after the match.. There have been similar instances before where some players like Steve, Ponting, Dhoni argued even the third umpire's decisions with the umpires.. But they plead guilty and get away.. May be, Ramdin shouldn't have been very rigid..

  • gauravjn on June 11, 2013, 2:29 GMT

    One hand History shows WI cricketers being very true to the spirit of the game- Walsh, LLyod, Richardson etc but History also has another dubious claim from RIDLEY JACCOBS, a wicketkeeper who was also suspended for falsely claiming a stumping of Indian batsman Sehwag with one hand and the ball being in another. Remember that Mr. Pollard?

  • Kapil_Choudhary on June 11, 2013, 1:29 GMT

    @Narkovian - the difference in the analogy you provide is the flip side. A batsman who gets a thin nick and pretends to have not hit it - does so because on other occasions when he has actually not hit it - the umpire may give him out and he is obligated to walk off. Thus it is better to just let the umpire make the decision in all such instances. Similarly, fielders often claim low catches even if they are mostly sure they didn't catch it because at times when u have caught it cleanly, the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman simply because the replay is inconclusive. Thus - its better to let all low catches be decided by replays. However, what Ramdin did was similar to a batsman knocking the cover off the ball and edging to slips and still standing his ground (like Clarke did in Sydneygate). In such situations, both the batsman and the fielder SHOULD be punished. Ramdin was rightly punished (though yes, Clarke unfairly got off in Sydney).

  • heathrf1974 on June 11, 2013, 1:25 GMT

    I saw the catch by Ponting. What was wrong with that catch? Isn't the ball allowed to touch the ground even though he has the ball under control and clearly in the grasp of his hands. Maybe I'm missing a rule here? And comparing it to Ramdin is ridiculous with the ball and no control in his hands whatsoever.

  • FredJ000 on June 10, 2013, 23:12 GMT

    I think this is harsh on Ramdin but there you go. Perhaps it's making an example of a player who has already had his moments to make sure it doesn't happen again in the near future.

    Looks like Johnson Charles will be taking the gloves...

  • Harmony111 on June 10, 2013, 22:34 GMT

    @LourensGrobbelaar: My comment already takes into account all that you say and it then asks whether the fielder doesn't even have the right to say he believed he had full control over the ball before it went out? Ramdin perceived he had control and so appealed while the umpires disagreed and rejected that appeal. Where does the question of spirit come in here?

    When batsmen refuse to walk it is often said that it is the job of the umpire to make the decision. Ramdin did not usurp this right, he presented an appeal that was later found to be faulty.

  • BRUTALANALYST on June 10, 2013, 22:15 GMT

    How many games was Johnathan Trott banned for after his even worse antics claiming that drop v Inida int he first Test . . .

  • kc69 on June 10, 2013, 21:58 GMT

    I still believe what happened was unfair and should had been punished but along with 100% fine in match fee suspension for 2 matches is way too much of an punishment considering the offense that was committed. Its really sad to imagine if there was any bias that was involved in this decision based on events in past.

  • tariqlaw on June 10, 2013, 21:37 GMT

    The West Indies captain Dwayne Bravo made a ludicrous assertion that the West Indies have a 'clean' record. Doesn't he remember that their former wicket-keeper Ridley Jacaobs was banned from the second Test against Zimbabwe at the Harare Sports Club July 27 to 31. 2001. The ICC Match Referee Denis Lindsay had penalised Jacobs after the television replay showed that in a WI Vs India match, he had stumped batsman Virender Sehwag without the ball in his right glove that broke the bails although the ball was in his left glove that was nowhere near the broken wicket. Have a sense of history Mr. Bravo and refrain from making sweeping statements!

  • Nutcutlet on June 10, 2013, 21:04 GMT

    I put Ramdin's mistake (in not confessing that the catch wasn't clean) down to the moment. He stopped thinking & suddenly found himself in hot water. It was too quick for it to be regarded as premeditated & if he'd stop to think, he'd have realised that the cameras wouldn't lie & he would be exposed. And so it proved. It wasn't malicious, but it was undeniably cheating. It is not at all like a batsman not walking, because the ump can rule on that & walkers in the past tended to be selective (we've won this one, so I'll look sporting & walk, or, we need ten to win & only #11 to come. I'm not walking!). This is why DRS is so useful, BTW; it can rectify mistakes. Is the punishment just? Well, it's set a high bench mark & I guarantee that we won't see anything else like it for a while, so it will have served its purpose to act as a deterrent. If a parent constantly chastises a child in a particular manner & the behaviour is still repeated, then the punishment hasn't worked. Common sense!

  • Unomaas on June 10, 2013, 20:57 GMT

    Cheating is cheating! As soon as you start saying 'BUT' when getting involved in this debate then you have lost perspective.

    Using @Narkovian's his logic, bowlers who howl and know its not out but get an out decision, should be prosecuted as well...? The problem with @Narkovian'z logic this is that their is no way that you can 100% conclusively prove that a batter knicked a ball because Snicko + Hotspot have been known to be inconclusive. It is this inconclusiveness that drives the whole DRS system.

  • A-Gunnie on June 10, 2013, 20:00 GMT

    @Cyril_Knight.... It is obvious Mr Ramdin intentions was not to cheat because he knows the replay will confirm his stance or show otherwise by taking it to the challenge.I am sure this is an honest reaction by him.I still feel the penalty was too harshed.

  • LourensGrobbelaar on June 10, 2013, 19:59 GMT

    @harmony111 The law states that for a fair catch to be taken the player has to be in control of the disposal of the ball after taking the initial catch. That is why Herschell Gibbs was deemed to have dropped Steve Waugh in the Super six phase of the 1999 World Cup.

  • darsh127 on June 10, 2013, 19:55 GMT

    @Narkovian, i can't agree more buddy.

  • A-Gunnie on June 10, 2013, 19:52 GMT

    @ 200ondebut.....you made some very good points, it will be very interesting how these are now penalized/treated in the future.

  • AlbertPintoGussaHua on June 10, 2013, 19:51 GMT

    Hmmm... Don't know what Ramdin was thinking... Reckon he was so embarrassed on grassing that catch that he did not know what to do when he saw him team mates celebrating. So now the question is... When a batsman knows for sure that he is out but does not walk, is that in the spirit of the game? When Southee was hit on the boot first by the Malinga delivery and knew that he was out, yet he decided to stay, was that in the spirit of the game? Southee should be suspended for 2 matches as well and 100% of his match fee confiscated.

  • spot_on on June 10, 2013, 19:39 GMT

    Hold onto the catch like you are holding onto a thread and hanging out of a cliff.. That's what the cricket rule book says.. Serves right for howlers!! Good ICC took a stand against him.. Hope SL,Aussie and other sledgers learn from this.

  • 200ondebut on June 10, 2013, 18:48 GMT

    Whilst not condoning his actions - it seems like there are double standards at play. There are many instances where players know they are either out (as a batsman) or not out (as a fielder) but similarly don't make the fact known to the umpire. Punishing Ramdon is like saying that batsmen now have to walk - or the fielding side recalling the batsman if they know he wasnt out.

  • Cyril_Knight on June 10, 2013, 18:18 GMT

    Many comments are over-complicating the situation. Ramdin in effect showed dissent to the umpire, Nigel Llong. Llong told the Windies and Misbah that the ball had been dropped and at this point Ramdin should have withdrawn his appeal. He did not he challenged the umpires authority by insisting that the catch had been taken.

    The only reason this was not highlighted more is because Llong decided to enforce his decision via the 3rd umpire. If the match was not on TV Ramdin's dissent would have resulted in ugly scenes.

    To compare to a batsman not walking is ridiculous the closest comparison is to a batsman showing dissent to an umpire after being given out.

  • Harmony111 on June 10, 2013, 17:51 GMT

    I haven't seen the actual video but it seems that Ramdin did take the ball in his gloves (for a very short time) and then it popped out. The law is not clear about the duration of holding the ball for the catch to be deemed to be complete. Therefore, as per the law Ramdin was perfectly within his right to claim the catch. Whether the catch was complete or not is for the umpire to decide and no one should have a problem if they decided that Ramdin did not have full control over it. However, to say that Ramdin did not even have a right to claim it and was going against the spirit is ridiculous.

    In the CB Series, David Hussey was involved in a Obstructing The Field incident where HIS OWN PERCEPTION of Self-Preservation was given more weightage than the actual obstruction. In that Sydney 08 Test, Clarke's OWN PERCEPTION of having taken a catch got priority.

    Against this convention, Ramdin doesn't even have the right to claim a catch? What about Ponting's grassed catch appeal in Syd 08?

  • delboy on June 10, 2013, 17:43 GMT

    How come Bopara got away free with virtually the same crime?

  • jabberwocky123 on June 10, 2013, 17:39 GMT

    I remember two people, both of whom have people queueing up to say what 'fantastic blokes' they are. doing EXACTLY the same thing (picking a dropped ball off the ground and claiming the catch) and getting away with it,

    AB De Villiers off Andrew Strauss, Headingley 2008. Fortunately Strauss, stood his ground and, like Misbah, was rightly given not out by the third umpire.

    Darren Sammy off Kevin Pietersen, ODI in St. Lucia in 2009 (the match when Flintoff took a hat-trick). No-one noticed and Pietersen was out.

    Both of them were, if anything, more blatant than Ramdin's. I agree that he should be punished but it's incredibly inconsistent as both Sammy and AB got away without any sanction whatsoever. They were both pre the cricket on Youtube era I suppose so they were able to sweep them under the carpet.

  • chechong0114 on June 10, 2013, 17:23 GMT

    As an avid cricket lover and fan it is easy to see why the game of cricket is struggling to really make its mark in the North American market and really take of as a lucrative entity worldwide, it seems to me that the only thing that the international cricket council is concerned about and good at doing is penalising players and treating grown men like little kids, cricketers already account for some of the lowest paid athletes in international sports the man has already been fined why go further to now suspend him for 2 games this is just ridiculous. The international cricket council needs to be finding ways to make the game more profitable for all involved and stop picking petty fights with its ambassadors which are the players. FILL ALL THOSE EMPTY SEATS in the stands and leave the players alone.

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 17:15 GMT

    @Tamara Manmohansingh, I'm sorry but you are wrong it was not an innocent human error Ramdin tried to claim the catch when he blatantly knew he had dropped the ball. Is the punishment too harsh ? is the case in question.

  • siddhartha87 on June 10, 2013, 17:08 GMT

    who will keep in absence of him? i heard Charles keeps wicket too.

  • mar2000 on June 10, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    Its a clear spot for SAMMY , now that Ramdin is out . Charles or Bravo will stand behind the stumps.

  • shane-oh on June 10, 2013, 16:38 GMT

    I'm sorry but this is a massive over-reaction. Whilst I don't object to punishing those that claim catches that they know are not legitimate, why are is Ramdin being used as an example? Players falsely claim catches all the time now - then lie through their teeth and say that they don't know if the ball has carried. It's very common. This is a slightly different situation, but the principle is the same. Again, I ask - why Ramdin? Why this catch? Next up: punishing Wicketkeepers and fielders who appeal for a catch when the ball hasn't been hit.

  • yuvi_gladiator on June 10, 2013, 16:09 GMT

    why did pleaded not guilty. I mean thats like he is saying that the video replay was edited to target him hehe

  • RaadQ on June 10, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    The difference is batsmen do not walk after a decision has been given in their favour. The fielding equivalent is a fielder saying "i didn't catch it" after an umpire has judged it caught! A batsman not walking after nicking cannot be compared with a fielder claiming a catch after obviously dropping it. Also i'm sure once technology becomes 100% on nicks most batsman would start walking as staying around would be pointless, just like claiming the catch was pointless because ramdin should have know technology would have rendered his claim useless.

  • avmd on June 10, 2013, 15:51 GMT

    Got away with a lighter punishment, deserved a severer penalty. Hope he learn from it, keep doing not very smart things,

  • wrenx on June 10, 2013, 15:47 GMT

    A lot of people saying this is too harsh. I'd say not harsh enough. I don't have much sympathy for batsmen who blatantly edge the ball and stand their ground either, but this was clearly a case of Ramdin trying to pull a fast one. I would've banned him for the rest of the tournament and sent him home. Pleading not guilty just made it worse, he could've owned up to it (even if it was in the non-acceptance Collingwood fashion of "you know, heat of the moment and stuff.") Very disappointed in Ramdin, he should feel like he's let his team mates down, this West Indies side doesn't deserved to be tarnished by this kind of thing, given that they all play hard and fair.

  • gudolerhum on June 10, 2013, 15:38 GMT

    On the basis of what has been presented ass it happened it seems extremely unlikely to have been an 'innocent error'. He must or at least he should have known it was not a clean catch. In my experience, at club level, I have never had a doubt whether or not I had taken a catch cleanly and despite the difference in levels, knowing what is right or wrong does not change. The ban is, in my opinion, entirely justified. It is not the batsman's duty to give himself out, or walk, that is for the umpire to decide, but taking or not taking a catch is the fielder/wicketkeeper's duty, particularly as this one appears to have been extremely clear.

  • ntg1972 on June 10, 2013, 15:36 GMT

    Why did he plead not guilty as well? He may have got a lighter suspension if he had admitted what he did was wrong.

  • Mr.Lock on June 10, 2013, 15:25 GMT

    The main issue is he pleaded NOT GUILTY. He claimed the catch when he knew it was not out, then he said I am not guilty of misconduct, that was not very smart adn rightly punished. I think he should have been banned for a year or so to get the point across.

    When a batsman does not walk there is enough doubt or at least the batsman is waiting for umpire to decide, that' why you need DRS to eliminate shockers.

  • Ncnotorious on June 10, 2013, 15:20 GMT

    A two game suspension is way too harsh in my opinion. Or atleast let the ban start at the end of the tournament. Batsman who 'break the spirit of the game' by not walking when clearly edging the ball should be reprimanded too.

  • Solid_Snake on June 10, 2013, 15:03 GMT

    Serves him right..In future he'll think twice before doing anything like that

  • Alizx5 on June 10, 2013, 15:01 GMT

    Very correct decison. I don't think its too harsh. If in doubt, he should have referred to the umpires but he didn't so he can't escape and right punishment in the end.

  • pardo on June 10, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    Yes - it is a shockingly blatant piece of cheating but how is it different to not walking when you've hit it, or appealing for an lbw when you know the batsman edged it? Or for that matter, backing up and expecting not to be Mankaded.

    I suppose, with the first two examples above you could argue that all you're doing is leaving it for the umpire to decide, knowing that you'll get some rough calls against you so it all evens out in the wash, but let's be honest - it is still cheating.

    All that is different here is that no one else cheats in this way. If, Like not walking, everyone did it Ramdin would be OK, but because he cheated in a way no-one else does he gets pinged. I suppose there is logic in there somewhere.

  • vamsisidda on June 10, 2013, 14:52 GMT

    Not a great decision, its sad that a wicket keeper got penalized so harshly, when batsmen get away day in and day out after nicking the ball. I agree that cricket game as a whole is a great equalizer, sometimes you have to walk because of bad decisions. but this is way over the top when you know that batsmen are doing the same for ages.No wonder people say that modern day game is very biased towards batsmen.

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:46 GMT

    To those who were asking who our back up keeper is Johnson Charles, the opener. So he will keep and more than likely we will see Sammy and Best on the side. I agree with the ICC wanting to show their authority and lack of tolerance for misconduct but the punishment is too harsh. Ramdin's intentions meant no harm, it was an honest human error. I agree with fining him, but banning him for 2 games is over kill. Don't let this get you down boys, we're rallying behind you more than ever now. WI ALL IN <3

  • phendel on June 10, 2013, 14:38 GMT

    too harsh i think....maybe a percent of his match fee but not all of it 7 certainly not a 2-game suspension. When a batsmen knws he's out & doesnt walk he should be fined too??

  • o0oPiTBuLLo0o on June 10, 2013, 14:35 GMT

    100 % match fee is OK, BUT 2 match suspension of such a crucial player and at crucial time, NOT FAIR AT ALL !!! :-(

  • SirViv1973 on June 10, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    I don't have a problem with players being banned for such actions as long as there is consistency. The problem I do have is that this seems rather harsh on the WI team with no other recognized keeper in the squad to replace him. I would have thought under the circumstances it would have been better for the ban to start at the end of the tournament. WI now face a difficult decision as to whether to appeal. If they do & it is upheld then WI could potentially have to play a sf without a specialist keeper on the other hand if DR accepts the punishment they will loose him for the last 2 group games & they could find themselves out before he available to play again.

  • John-Price on June 10, 2013, 14:30 GMT

    The question has to be asked - why is it OK for a batsman to pretend he hasn't hit a ball when he know he has, but a fielder cannot pretend to catch a ball when he hasn't? Morally, I cannot see a distinction.

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:25 GMT

    what does ICC mean by breaking spirit of the game? there were numerous occasions when batsmen did not leave the field despite being clearly out. wasnt that the same case? we knew that Ramdin catch was doubtful but its too harsh...

  • slur64 on June 10, 2013, 14:24 GMT

    Ramdin should have owned up, but 2 games? That's ridiculous...

  • Gloucsfan on June 10, 2013, 14:21 GMT

    Good. Hopefully ICC will do the same now for all catches falsely claimed. Maybe non walkers too

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    What happens when a batsman gets an edge and doesn't walk? What happens when a bowler sees the ball pitch 6 inches outside leg but still appeals? Aren't they trying to get away with it, too? I don't condone what Ramdin did, and I fully endorse the principles of the Spirit of Cricket, but this seems a bit odd to me.

  • A-Gunnie on June 10, 2013, 14:16 GMT

    Come on.....I saw the replay and this penalty is not a fair one and they are probably just using it to send a message to others.An an appeal should be coming soon W.I

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    who is our(West Indies') back up keeper?

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    Oh Denesh.... I think you deserve it more than two ODIs!

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    Seems harsh to me. For me I think, he assumed that time for 'holding' a catch was over that's why he carried on appealing.

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:09 GMT

    Denesh's act wasn't pleasing. Players should not ruin sports spirit while on the field.

  • yogesh.gg on June 10, 2013, 14:08 GMT

    I think this is too harsh..

  • yogesh.gg on June 10, 2013, 14:08 GMT

    I think this is too harsh..

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:09 GMT

    Denesh's act wasn't pleasing. Players should not ruin sports spirit while on the field.

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    Seems harsh to me. For me I think, he assumed that time for 'holding' a catch was over that's why he carried on appealing.

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    Oh Denesh.... I think you deserve it more than two ODIs!

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    who is our(West Indies') back up keeper?

  • A-Gunnie on June 10, 2013, 14:16 GMT

    Come on.....I saw the replay and this penalty is not a fair one and they are probably just using it to send a message to others.An an appeal should be coming soon W.I

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    What happens when a batsman gets an edge and doesn't walk? What happens when a bowler sees the ball pitch 6 inches outside leg but still appeals? Aren't they trying to get away with it, too? I don't condone what Ramdin did, and I fully endorse the principles of the Spirit of Cricket, but this seems a bit odd to me.

  • Gloucsfan on June 10, 2013, 14:21 GMT

    Good. Hopefully ICC will do the same now for all catches falsely claimed. Maybe non walkers too

  • slur64 on June 10, 2013, 14:24 GMT

    Ramdin should have owned up, but 2 games? That's ridiculous...

  • on June 10, 2013, 14:25 GMT

    what does ICC mean by breaking spirit of the game? there were numerous occasions when batsmen did not leave the field despite being clearly out. wasnt that the same case? we knew that Ramdin catch was doubtful but its too harsh...