BCCI-ICC on collision course on Jadeja issue

The BCCI and its parent body ICC seemed headed for a showdown after Indian all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja was today fined 50 per cent of his match fee for the altercation with England pacer James Anderson, a sentence which a livid Indian Board intends to challenge.
Jadeja was docked 50 per cent of his match fee by match referee David Boon for the on-field incident with Anderson but the player was not found guilty for the original level 2 offence charged by the England team management.
Soon after the ICC announcement, a miffed BCCI made it clear that it was not satisfied with the verdict and said it reserved its right to appeal against the sentence.

The BCCI said it was fully behind Jadeja after Boon found the player guilty of 'conduct contrary to the spirit of the game'.
"The BCCI has taken note of the ICC Match Referee's decision to find Ravindra Jadeja guilty of a Level 1 'Breach of Conduct' for his involvement in an incident on the second day of the Nottingham Test of the ongoing series between India and England," the BCCI said in a statement.
"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," it added.

The incident occurred during the lunch break of the second day's play at Nottingham during which, the Indians claim that Anderson had allegedly "abused" and "pushed" Jadeja as the players were making their way into the dressing rooms.
The England team management, which had initially described it as a "minor" incident, later filed a counter-charge against Jadeja.
Boon held a hearing in Southampton on Thursday which was attended by both the players, their legal counsels, witnesses as well as BCCI's MV Sridhar, Phil Neale and Paul Downton of the ECB, and the ICC's Ethics & Regulatory Lawyer.
In the meeting that lasted for two-and-half hours, former Australia batsman Boon said that the charges on Jadeja only found him guilty to 'conduct contrary to the spirit of the game'.