India unhappy with Jadeja fine
India appear far from happy with Ravindra Jadeja's punishment for his part in the spat with England fast bowler James Anderson during the Trent Bridge Test.
- Related Content
Jadeja has been fined half his match fee - a sum thought to be in the region of £3,000 - after being found guilty of a Level 1 breach by International Cricket Council match referee David Boon.
Jadeja was the subject of a counter-allegation by England after India brought a Level 3 charge against Anderson for "abusing and pushing" the opposing all-rounder in the pavilion stairwell as they made their way off for lunch on day two of the drawn match.
Anderson's case, which if proven could lead to much more stringent punishment - including the possibility of a ban of up to four Tests, will be heard by judicial commissioner Gordon Lewis next Friday after the conclusion of the third of five matches in the Investec series.
The England and Wales Cricket Board set the remit for Jadeja's hearing only ever as high as Level 2, under which a fine rather than a ban is a much more probable outcome.
After a two-and-a-half-hour hearing, involving evidence and legal representation from both sides in Southampton on Thursday evening, Boon decided no proven guilt against Jadeja at Level 2.
But he did find him guilty, under article 2.1.8, of "conduct contrary to the spirit of the game" - resulting in the match fee fine.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India soon made its disquiet at the judgment clear - although it seems any intention to appeal may be unconstitutional.
A BCCI statement read: "The BCCI wishes to make it clear that it is not satisfied with the verdict.
"The BCCI reserves its right to appeal against the sentence.
"The BCCI believes that Mr Ravindra Jadeja was not at fault, and supports him fully."
The ICC had already cited its own policy in a press release, however, stating: "In accordance with article 8.1 of the code, a decision in respect of a first Level 1 offence is non-appealable and shall remain the full and final decision in relation to the matter."
Jadeja was fined in November last year but for a different category of offence, one which means his latest transgression does not amount to a second in 12 months and appears to rule any appeal off-side.
Announcing his earlier decision, Boon said: "Under Article 6.1 of the code, I had to be comfortably satisfied that the offence had occurred in order to find Mr Jadeja guilty of an offence under Article 2.2.11.
"While I was in no doubt that confrontation did occur, and that such conduct was not in the spirit of the game and should not have taken place, I was not comfortably satisfied that this was a level 2 offence.
"Therefore, in exercising my discretion under article 7.6.5 of the code and having heard all the evidence, I was comfortably satisfied that Mr Jadeja had committed a level 1 offence under article 2.1.8 of the Code."