Essex have reacted with fury to being hit with a 12-point deduction after one of their players used a bat deemed too wide.
The club’s slim Division One title hopes are effectively over after the bat used by Feroze Khushi in April’s match against Nottinghamshire, was ruled to too wide. Law 5.7.2 of the Laws of the Game stipulates that bats should not exceed 10.8cm in width.
Khushi made 21 in his second innings when the bat, made by Gray-Nicolls, was ruled to have breached the regulations.
“I assume the ECB thought this was cheating and the appeal panel is trying to flex its muscles a bit,” Essex president Keith Fletcher told the Times. “Feroze does not believe he did anything wrong and the whole side has been penalised, not just the one player.
“As a batsman I know that a few millimetres either way is not going to have any effect on performance. Umpires test bats at random and I think the ECB have been absolutely stupid.
“We realise we are not going to catch Surrey now and there is money at stake for the players and prestige for a non-Test-match club, such as ourselves, involved in where we finish. We are always up against it with the Test-match clubs, which already have the money to attract the best players.”
The points deduction was made by a panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission, a body that is independent from the England & Wales Cricket Board and which adjudicates on breaches of cricket regulations. The ECB itself did not impose the sanction.
Essex’s position ‘a dramatic overstatement’
The Cricket Discipline Commission vehemently defended themselves against Essex’s complaints.
“Essex’s position in relation to the alleged issues over bat gauges is misconceived,” the CDC judgment said. “Essex’s suggestion that this case has ‘uncovered a significant and fundamental problem with the current bat-gauge testing regime’ is a dramatic overstatement.”
The CDC added that it was “demonstrated in this case” that “there are bat gauges in circulation which vary (to greater and lesser degrees) from strict conformity with Appendix B.8. We do not find that surprising but, in any event, it does not constitute any basis for mitigation in the circumstances of this case.
“The evidence before the Panel showed that there were no bat gauges used whose dimensions were less generous than the dimensions of aperture in Appendix B.8 by more than 0.3mm in any direction. We do not consider that to be an unacceptable margin of tolerance. These dimensions of aperture still materially exceed the Permitted Bat Dimensions.”
‘It is not a level playing field’
Anu Mohindru KC, the Essex chairman, also criticised the decision.
“We appealed the initial judgment and it was supported by the cricket regulator, but the initial decision was upheld,” Mohindru said.
“Since then, no other bat has been tested. My issue is with the apparatus for testing not being standard. I’m not suggesting we did not fail the final test and I don’t have any criticism of the umpires and match referee but it is not a level playing field if we are all using different gauges. I would like to think we are not being singled out in this matter.”
Durham were docked 10 points in 2022 after Nic Maddinson’s bat did not fit through the metal gauge carried by the umpires. If a bat is deemed oversized, it is tested again as damp conditions can make it swell.
After the points deduction, Essex lie in fourth place in Division One, with no risk of relegation.
Source Agencies
