Apr 25, 2017
0 0

IPL 2017: Rohit Sharma fined 50 per cent match fee for dissent

Written by

Mumbai Indians captain Rohit Sharma has been fined 50 per cent of his match fee for showing dissent on Monday night during his team’s narrow 3-run loss to Rising Pune Supergiant at the Wankhede Stadium. Match referee Javagal Srinath found Rohit guilty of a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.5 of the Code of Conduct. Rohit admitted to the offence at the end of the match and the heavy fine is due to it being his second offence of IPL 10.

The incident happened in the final over of MI’s chase of 161. With 11 needed in four balls and Jaydev Unadkat bowling the over, Rohit shuffled across and left the slower delivery outside the off stump. With the MI skipper expecting it to be a wide delivery, umpire S Ravi did not think the same and a surprised Rohit gestured and argued with him before the square-leg umpire, A Nand Kishore, had to intervene.

Both Ajinkya Rahane and Harbhajan Singh of RPS and MI respectively, differed on the legality of the delivery but concurred that it happens in the heat of the moment and there was nothing extraordinarily wrong from Rohit. “Rohit’s behaviour at that point was natural. As a captain, as a player, when the game is so close, it comes automatically; nobody does it deliberately. I don’t think there was anything wrong with his behaviour, but the umpire’s call was right too, for us,” said Rahane. “It happens on the field and remains on the field. In this format, in close games, this will happen in the future as well. You should respect the umpire’s decision as well as whatever Rohit did that was completely natural,” he added.

Meanwhile Harbhajan said, “He didn’t shout at the umpire or ask why it wasn’t given a wide. He just wanted to know where he should stand for the wide to be called and he was told that the amount he moves is the amount of margin the bowler gets. I don’t really know if it was actually a wide ball or not. I feel if both the legs of the batsmen move across the stumps, then the bowler should get the [benefit of the] margin. But, if you see, only one leg of the batsman went across, so I feel it should have been a wide. But, in the end, whatever is the umpire’s decision we have to move on with it.”

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply