Sri Lanka v England, 2nd Test, Colombo, 4th day April 6, 2012

Dilshan fined for excessive appealing

ESPNcricinfo staff
22

Tillakaratne Dilshan has been fined 10% of his match fee for excessive appealing during the third day of the second Test against England at the P Sara Oval in Colombo.

The incident which brought the charge occurred at 88.2 overs, when Dilshan appealed for a bat-pad catch at short leg against Jonathan Trott. The ICC statement said Dilshan ran through in celebration before a decision was given, then turned around and appealed repeatedly.

Dilshan was charged with a Level 1 offence, contrary to clause 2.1.5 which covers "excessive appealing and excessive shall include a) repeated appeal of the same decision/appeal and b) celebrating a dismissal before the decision has been given."

He pleaded guilty to the offence and Javagal Srinath, the match referee, said: "Dilshan accepted the charge and the penalty imposed without qualms and so there was no need for a formal hearing."

Dilshan was often at the centre of the action on the third day and was bowling the over during which Kevin Pietersen was given an official warning for preparing to play the switch hit before the bowler was in his delivery stride. Dilshan twice aborted a delivery when he saw Pietersen changing his grip before the warning was given to the batsman.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:21 GMT

    @pradeep_dealwis on (April 06 2012, 15:09 PM GMT) Yeah , think I do remember it. That was the series where SL had about 1000 good appeals turned down and every single SL wicket was unwarranted.In the 2002 tour , I'm not sure. I think you're playing the bad umpiring down and SL would have won that one too. Probably by whitewash too and they'd probably have got this match wrapped up too had it not been for the umpiring horrors which don't even themselves out either. Thanks for bringing this to our attention

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:15 GMT

    @randikaayya on (April 06 2012, 10:19 AM GMT) Was unfortunate for him. I was really sad for him after the character he showed an accepting KP was doing a number and the fact the he just got on with the bowling. Awww poor Dilshan.

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:14 GMT

    @nimal183 on (April 06 2012, 14:54 PM GMT) If it wasn't the umpires call he would have been not out. Cook was given out in the 1st test caught behind and while there was no clear evidence that he hit it there was no clear evidence to support his case. At least it's consistent to both sides.

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:14 GMT

    @whyowhy on (April 06 2012, 14:55 PM GMT) A bit excessive there.

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:01 GMT

    pradeep_dealwis on (April 06 2012, 15:09 PM GMT) Feel better for getting that off your chest again?

  • pradeep_dealwis on April 6, 2012, 15:09 GMT

    Another SL Vs Eng series tainted by umpiring controversy. Remember Eng won the 2001 series in SL because of the umpiring. Both sides got it bad but it was AT LEAST 2:1 in favour of Eng, maybe more. And the following tour of Eng was bad for SL as well, horrid umpiring in 2002. Though Eng would have won that series anyways, but not that easily.

  • whyowhy on April 6, 2012, 14:55 GMT

    Not fined, he should be suspended for a couple of matches, he is a real showman - not only does he appeal excessively at the same time he tries to damage the wicket, the umpires have to watch him very carefully as he is capable of anything. As for the stupid comments from the Lankans, there are none so blind as those who will not see....................

  • nimal183 on April 6, 2012, 14:54 GMT

    I think dilshan is unlucky with his bat bad decision... If there is no conclusive evidence to show that he did not nick the ball ..benefit of the doubt should go to batsman's favour.. How come they can stand with on field umpires's decision when they are not 100% sure. In this case the right decision was not made!!

  • RandyOZ on April 6, 2012, 14:54 GMT

    How poor a commentator is Sanath? Did anyone else hear Atherton explaining the review system to him off-air, appalling.

  • thinktank1 on April 6, 2012, 14:44 GMT

    Dilli inspired from Sanga..

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:21 GMT

    @pradeep_dealwis on (April 06 2012, 15:09 PM GMT) Yeah , think I do remember it. That was the series where SL had about 1000 good appeals turned down and every single SL wicket was unwarranted.In the 2002 tour , I'm not sure. I think you're playing the bad umpiring down and SL would have won that one too. Probably by whitewash too and they'd probably have got this match wrapped up too had it not been for the umpiring horrors which don't even themselves out either. Thanks for bringing this to our attention

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:15 GMT

    @randikaayya on (April 06 2012, 10:19 AM GMT) Was unfortunate for him. I was really sad for him after the character he showed an accepting KP was doing a number and the fact the he just got on with the bowling. Awww poor Dilshan.

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:14 GMT

    @nimal183 on (April 06 2012, 14:54 PM GMT) If it wasn't the umpires call he would have been not out. Cook was given out in the 1st test caught behind and while there was no clear evidence that he hit it there was no clear evidence to support his case. At least it's consistent to both sides.

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:14 GMT

    @whyowhy on (April 06 2012, 14:55 PM GMT) A bit excessive there.

  • JG2704 on April 6, 2012, 20:01 GMT

    pradeep_dealwis on (April 06 2012, 15:09 PM GMT) Feel better for getting that off your chest again?

  • pradeep_dealwis on April 6, 2012, 15:09 GMT

    Another SL Vs Eng series tainted by umpiring controversy. Remember Eng won the 2001 series in SL because of the umpiring. Both sides got it bad but it was AT LEAST 2:1 in favour of Eng, maybe more. And the following tour of Eng was bad for SL as well, horrid umpiring in 2002. Though Eng would have won that series anyways, but not that easily.

  • whyowhy on April 6, 2012, 14:55 GMT

    Not fined, he should be suspended for a couple of matches, he is a real showman - not only does he appeal excessively at the same time he tries to damage the wicket, the umpires have to watch him very carefully as he is capable of anything. As for the stupid comments from the Lankans, there are none so blind as those who will not see....................

  • nimal183 on April 6, 2012, 14:54 GMT

    I think dilshan is unlucky with his bat bad decision... If there is no conclusive evidence to show that he did not nick the ball ..benefit of the doubt should go to batsman's favour.. How come they can stand with on field umpires's decision when they are not 100% sure. In this case the right decision was not made!!

  • RandyOZ on April 6, 2012, 14:54 GMT

    How poor a commentator is Sanath? Did anyone else hear Atherton explaining the review system to him off-air, appalling.

  • thinktank1 on April 6, 2012, 14:44 GMT

    Dilli inspired from Sanga..

  • PanGlupek on April 6, 2012, 14:32 GMT

    Couple of rather biased posts on here in Dilshan's defence: To say it was as obviously out as a catch at 2nd slip: Errm... Players all know they'll get fined if they just run off & celebrate without appealing first, that's why he pleaded guilty. @Multipack, did you see any of the English players celebrating wickets they haven't got? I didn't. Sledging is irrelevant to this offence, but it's not like England are the only team that does it. Every team has at least one loudmouth. There are certain boundaries that shouldn't be crossed when it comes to sledging, and if England crossed them, somebody would have whinged to the ICC/press a long time ago (but they can't, because they all do it themselves).

  • cyniket on April 6, 2012, 13:36 GMT

    @randikaayya. how biased are you!? it was very clear to everyone, including the commentary team, that trott didn't edge it. As for Dilshan's dismissal, there was no evidence to suggest the umpire was wrong. Just because your team moans about something doesn't mean they're right. I remember Dilshan referring one last year after it had smashed into his glove, there's no reason to take his word for anything. It's equally true that just because england were moaning about samaraweera's not out decision in the first innings, it doesn't mean it's out.

  • landl47 on April 6, 2012, 13:09 GMT

    Clearly randikaaya only sees what he wants to see. The umpire's decision was upheld in every case he talks about. Cook was given not out by the umpire, decision upheld. Trott was given not out by the umpire, decision upheld (and it very obviously wasn't out as the replay showed). Dilshan was given out by the umpire, decision upheld. Pietersen was given not out by the umpire, no review. The review process worked exactly as it should in every case in which it was used and the umpire was supported every time because the review showed no reason to change the decision. These are neutral umpires, all 3 of them. If there's any issue, it's one that I have mentioned repeatedly; ALL decisions should be taken by the three umpires, with the on-field umpires asking for the third umpire's help when they need it. That would mean that the Pietersen decision might have been reviewed. Other than that, the DRS worked perfectly.

  • StatisticsRocks on April 6, 2012, 12:40 GMT

    @MI_ROCKS_IPL: Not ure if that is a question or u r surprised that Srinath is a match refree. Srinath has been nominated by ICC as a Match Refree and has been doing this for a long time.

  • 5wombats on April 6, 2012, 12:30 GMT

    Much as we like and respect Dilshan - when it comes to excessive appealing - he had the worlds finest "excessive appealer" as his tutor.... Muralitharan. So is it any surprise that this has happened?

  • truthhh on April 6, 2012, 10:29 GMT

    dilshan is not a test batsman,he is only good at ODI.give dilshan's place to chandimal!!

  • multipack on April 6, 2012, 10:23 GMT

    what a surprise to find a sri lankan gets punished for excessive appealing but not the english? it's no wonder the english bowlers and close fielders sledge/abuse batsmen without fear when on and off field officials don't apply the rules fairly.

  • randikaayya on April 6, 2012, 10:19 GMT

    @sifter132: Ever seen a bowler appeal to the umpire for a catch taken at second slip? This was that obvious and there wasn't any apparent dissent from Dilly either. And next thing, he gets given out incorrectly off the pad as a bat-pad!!!

    Although umpiring has been of a generally high standard during the series the lack of Hot Spot was dearly felt by the SL team. Cook got a reprieve and if he was to be given out on Hot Spot then the extra review left would have accounted for Pieterson early. That would have meant that England would have had a similar score to SL and the match evenly poised at that stage. Only SLC are to blame though, not England cricketers

  • senthil25 on April 6, 2012, 9:17 GMT

    Players must follow the rules, Sorry for dislshan, 10% of match fee will not going to affect you, but that will teach some lesson to U & some young players.

  • Bruisers on April 6, 2012, 9:02 GMT

    Loudmouth finally gets what he deserved.. serves him right.

  • sifter132 on April 6, 2012, 8:50 GMT

    That's what the article says mr/ms MI_rocks...

    Fair enough too. Understandable appeal, it looked like a batpad initially, but you can't just run down the pitch on those without asking the umpire.

  • IJ-IPL on April 6, 2012, 8:27 GMT

    Javagal Srinath is the match referee ?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • IJ-IPL on April 6, 2012, 8:27 GMT

    Javagal Srinath is the match referee ?

  • sifter132 on April 6, 2012, 8:50 GMT

    That's what the article says mr/ms MI_rocks...

    Fair enough too. Understandable appeal, it looked like a batpad initially, but you can't just run down the pitch on those without asking the umpire.

  • Bruisers on April 6, 2012, 9:02 GMT

    Loudmouth finally gets what he deserved.. serves him right.

  • senthil25 on April 6, 2012, 9:17 GMT

    Players must follow the rules, Sorry for dislshan, 10% of match fee will not going to affect you, but that will teach some lesson to U & some young players.

  • randikaayya on April 6, 2012, 10:19 GMT

    @sifter132: Ever seen a bowler appeal to the umpire for a catch taken at second slip? This was that obvious and there wasn't any apparent dissent from Dilly either. And next thing, he gets given out incorrectly off the pad as a bat-pad!!!

    Although umpiring has been of a generally high standard during the series the lack of Hot Spot was dearly felt by the SL team. Cook got a reprieve and if he was to be given out on Hot Spot then the extra review left would have accounted for Pieterson early. That would have meant that England would have had a similar score to SL and the match evenly poised at that stage. Only SLC are to blame though, not England cricketers

  • multipack on April 6, 2012, 10:23 GMT

    what a surprise to find a sri lankan gets punished for excessive appealing but not the english? it's no wonder the english bowlers and close fielders sledge/abuse batsmen without fear when on and off field officials don't apply the rules fairly.

  • truthhh on April 6, 2012, 10:29 GMT

    dilshan is not a test batsman,he is only good at ODI.give dilshan's place to chandimal!!

  • 5wombats on April 6, 2012, 12:30 GMT

    Much as we like and respect Dilshan - when it comes to excessive appealing - he had the worlds finest "excessive appealer" as his tutor.... Muralitharan. So is it any surprise that this has happened?

  • StatisticsRocks on April 6, 2012, 12:40 GMT

    @MI_ROCKS_IPL: Not ure if that is a question or u r surprised that Srinath is a match refree. Srinath has been nominated by ICC as a Match Refree and has been doing this for a long time.

  • landl47 on April 6, 2012, 13:09 GMT

    Clearly randikaaya only sees what he wants to see. The umpire's decision was upheld in every case he talks about. Cook was given not out by the umpire, decision upheld. Trott was given not out by the umpire, decision upheld (and it very obviously wasn't out as the replay showed). Dilshan was given out by the umpire, decision upheld. Pietersen was given not out by the umpire, no review. The review process worked exactly as it should in every case in which it was used and the umpire was supported every time because the review showed no reason to change the decision. These are neutral umpires, all 3 of them. If there's any issue, it's one that I have mentioned repeatedly; ALL decisions should be taken by the three umpires, with the on-field umpires asking for the third umpire's help when they need it. That would mean that the Pietersen decision might have been reviewed. Other than that, the DRS worked perfectly.