Gambhir to appeal against his Test ban (Lead)October 31st, 2008 - 3:15 pm ICT by IANS
New Delhi, Oct 31 (IANS) The Indian cricket board Friday said that Gautam Gambhir will appeal against his one-Test ban for the breach of International Cricket Council’s (ICC) Code of Conduct during the ongoing third cricket Test against Australia at the Feroz Shah Kotla here.Match Referee Chris Broad Friday imposed the ban on Gambhir for violating the spirit of the game during an on-filed spat with Australian all-rounder Shane Watson on the first day of the Kotla Test Wednesday.
Watson had hurled some abuses at Gambhir Wednesday, who while taking a run stuck out his elbow which hit the bowler.
Both the players were charged but while Watson escaped with a match-fee fine of 10 percent, Gambhir was given a harsher sentence of a one Test ban.
As a result Gambhir, who is in terrific form in the series, will have to miss the final Test at Nagpur. Depending on the date of the hearing of the appeal, the opener might have a chance to play the match.
Gambhir was charged with a level 2 offence, which states that players shall at all times conduct play within the spirit of the game. Gambhir though claimed the incident was not deliberate.
“For Level 2 offences, the concerned players have the right to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision within 24 hours of notification of the decision. Accordingly,. Gambhir will be lodging an appeal,” N. Srinivasan, secretary of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), said in a statement.
The hearing by the match referee took place Thursday evening after the second day’s play. While Watson was fined Thursday, Gambhir’s hearing was adjourned till Friday morning as Broad wanted to have another look at the footage.
“The decision to find Gambhir guilty of a level 2 offence is indicative of the fact that any degree of physical contact is unacceptable,” Broad said while announcing the decision.
“I would have been obliged to impose a minimum penalty of a two-Test match ban. But in the view of the umpires, the facts of this case - the lightness of the physical conduct and the element of provocation - would not justify such a penalty,” he said.