IPL 2017 | Daniel Christian may face disciplinary action for jersey gaffe
RPS all-rounder Daniel Christian may face disciplinary action after he came out to bat against the Kolkata Knight Riders last night wearing teammate Ben Stokes’ jersey. However, to his credit Christian admitted to the gaffe on Twitter and is likely to face only a fine as punishment for the blunder.
Having worn the right jersey while RPS were bowling during the first innings of last night’s game against KKR, Christian came out to bat in a hurry and mistakenly wore Ben Stokes’ jersey at the fall of the 6th RPS wicket. And though, Christian was at the crease only for a short while, the fans took note of the gaffe and were quick to point it out. But Christian was quick to apologise for his error, shortly after the game.
Great win tonight, Tripathi brilliant!! Re the shirt mix up, both mine and Stokesy's shirts were drying out and I grabbed the wrong one!
— Daniel Christian (@danchristian54) May 3, 2017
The rules with regard to the player names at the back of the jersey, according to the IPL’s Clothing and Equipment Regulations on IPLt20.com states that, “A player’s name and number must correctly reflect the identity of the player and must be positioned on the Playing Shirts and Playing Sweaters.”
Further, although Christian may have disciplinary action imposed on him for the blunder, there is no specific action mentioned in the rule book and is totally up to the match official to decide the degree of punishment. And though such issues also involve sponsors’ contractual terms and other rules, the only sensible punishment appears to be nothing harsher than a fine for what seems to be an honest mistake on Christian’s part.
Ironically, yesterday was also Christian’s 34th birthday and he celebrated it in style as he smashed a six to seal a four-wicket victory for the Rising Pune Supergiant over the Kolkata Knight Riders at the Eden Gardens. The win was RPS’ 7th of the season and moved them up to 3rd in the table, level on points with last night’s opponents.
Comments
Leave a comment0 Comments