West Indies v India, 1st Test, Kingston, Jamaica June 24, 2011

Rampaul fined, Sammy reprimanded

ESPNcricinfo staff

West Indies seamer Ravi Rampaul has been fined 10% of his match fee for showing dissent and his captain Darren Sammy has been reprimanded for breaching the code of conduct during the first Test against India in Jamaica.

Rampaul was penalised for asking the umpire whether the ball he was dismissed off was a no-ball for height. Ishant Sharma had already bowled a couple of bouncers in the over before another delivery reared up unexpectedly, brushing Rampaul's gloves as he fended at it. The match referee, Jeff Crowe, deemed Rampaul to have breached clause 2.1.3 of the code which relates to "showing dissent at an umpire's decision".

Sammy was warned for pointing to his forearm after a huge appeal for a close-in catch off the first delivery he faced. The appeal was turned down but Sammy was punished for conduct "contrary to the spirit of the game".

There was no official hearing as both players accepted the ruling of the match referee. "Just like India player Amit Mishra in the first innings, Ravi stood his ground and gestured to both the umpires on being given out," Crowe said. "Darren, who was eventually given not out, immediately looked to influence the umpire as to where the ball struck him."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Manesh on June 27, 2011, 5:27 GMT

    -Obey my order- rule is not good for cricket. ICC should punish match referee for taking action against such incidents!. what a pity.

  • Ross on June 25, 2011, 17:02 GMT

    @SRP1: Quite nicely said. I honestly don't see the harm in Rampaul asking a question and receiving an answer and then walking off. If he had protested the call, then you could say he was breaching the code of conduct but as far as it looked, and i cannot say more than that because i was not there as a witness to what actually happened, he was told it was a legal delivery and he proceeded to walk off. He might not have agreed with it but he walked off without confrontation and yet he receives a fine for voicing a simple query that, I believe, would not have gotten him in trouble if he was the bowler asking how high the ball was and whether it was a no ball or not, or disputing how close an LBW decision was.

  • Wala on June 25, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    If the WI board a strong one this would not be the case for Rampaul. Sorry for the lad, but cann't do anything as the WI board will surely not protest against this action.

  • Dhurandhar on June 24, 2011, 20:13 GMT

    As per TenCricket TV commentators this was not called a no ball because it was not an intended short pitched bouncer, but it jumped unexpectedly from the good length spot. Whatever that is worth.

  • Arnab on June 24, 2011, 19:57 GMT

    @Metman : Mate as far as I understand, a bouncer is a delivery above the shoulder height (and not head height). So if Rampaul has fended off his throat (according to your statement) then it should be a bouncer. Although the consideration has to be given here that he was bending his back while fending the ball, hence reducing his height. If a batsman ducks under a bouncer, from the umpire's point of view, you have to basically guess the actual height of the batsman where the ball is passing to decide whether it is a bouncer or wide. Basically the controversy over the decision has eclipsed 2 great presentation of skills on part of Ishant (what a delivery!) and Dhoni (what a catch!). This delivery reminded me of a similar one from Shreesanth to Kallis in India's last tour of South Africa, which had Kallis fending awkwardly literally from the air (both feet above the ground level). From a land of medium pacers and spinners like India, these few instances are really heartening to see.

  • RAVIPRAKASH on June 24, 2011, 18:20 GMT

    DO any one remember, what was the fine Glenn Mcgrath received when he fought with sarwan, had he been punished? i dont remember..

    umpires need to understand smaller incidents on the fields and judge which to punish and which not?

    Whats worng if a batsman checked if it was a no ball or not?

    when a bowler bowls a no ball for over stepping, doesnt he check with the umpire whether he has really over stepped ? similarly a batsman wanted to check if it was a bouncer or not, i dont think the batsman refuses if he was given out, but Umpire and the match referee needs to under stand these situations.

  • Michael on June 24, 2011, 18:18 GMT

    @Rampaul and all others who are in not in favour of the fine!How can it be a bouncer if yu fended it off ,and it hit either yr bat or the glove ?Were the bat and glove above yr head ?It was a short pitched ball that yu fended off yr throat.

  • Sunil on June 24, 2011, 18:18 GMT

    If bowlers and fielders have a right to appeal, who doesn't a batsman be given the same privilege?

  • Dhurandhar on June 24, 2011, 18:05 GMT

    There is no organization more gutless and brainless than ICC. Better BCCI than ICC. The umpire's decision can be final, no problem, but the players have the right to ask in a decent manner as to why they are being given out. Umpires' stupidities and incapabilities can change the course of a series, not jut a test match, and they can destroy players' careers. So, what is wrong if a player asks for a re-confirmation from the umpire. He is not abusing or assaulting the umpire. This is just players being humans. A bowler running into the danger zone 'can' change the nature of the pitch and that 'can' effect the course of the match and therefore the bowler is banned for the innings after three occurences. How about an umpire changing the course of a match with a stupid decision. Shouldn't the umpire be banned if the replays show it was an incorrect decision.

  • Arnab on June 24, 2011, 18:04 GMT

    Rules are pretty confusing... when a bowler appeals for LBW and the umpire denies, we often see bowlers asking why it was denied and the umpire clarifying whether it is missing leg or pitching outside leg etc. But the reverse, if a batsman is given out, he cannot question why he is given out. Again, if umpires give a wrong decision, they are human and ICC says: to err is human. But if a batsman shakes his head given out wrongly out of clear human instinct, fine him... pretty absurd.

  • No featured comments at the moment.