The Times of India published a seemingly sensational report on Tuesday, May 17. It argued that India captain Sourav Ganguly was booked for slow over-rate under an incorrect clause in the International Cricket Council's Code of Conduct.

The claim looked revealing, but when you read through you could see that the newspaper had simply failed to put together two plus two.

• Also see: Ganguly's troubled times

The main premise of the newspaper's argument was that slow over-rate by itself is not a Level 2 offence.

Also, that it has not been defined that a player/captain can be banned, but only be penalised for slow over-rate.

But, in the notes for CC- Offences and Penalties, the ICC states: 'Where the facts or gravity or seriousness of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly covered by any of the above offences (as listed in Level 1, 2, 3, 4), the person laying the charge may allege one of the following offences:

(A) Breach of Rule C1-unfair play or

(B) Breach of rule C2-conduct that brings the game into disrepute.'

2.11 of Level 2 offence states: 'Any attempt to manipulate the match in regard to the result, net run rate, bonus points or otherwise, the captain of any team guilty of such conduct shall be held responsible.'

The ambiguity in the clause provides the ICC the scope to define what 'manipulation' or 'unfair play' could be.

Moreover, in the chapter of sanctions for slow over-rates, the ICC clearly defines it as a Level 2 offence.

Clause J-5 (iii): 'If the over-rate is more than five overs short of the minimum overs required in Test match or more than 2 overs in an ODI match, the captain will in addition to the sanctions imposed in accordance to (i) (penalising 10% match fee) and (ii) be charged under C1 of the Code of Conduct, conduct contrary to the spirit of the game, on the basis of time wasting (Level 2 offence).'

Ganguly bowled three overs short in the third and fourth One-Day Internationals against Pakistan in Jamshedpur and Ahmedabad respectively in the recent series and thus qualifies as an offender under the ICC's code of conduct.

Graeme Smith was also found guilty of not completing his overs in time in the third ODI against the West Indies in Barbados on May 11. He had earlier been fined for the offence against England at the Oval in September 2004. South Africa bowled three overs short on both occasions.

The ICC has said if a Level 2 offence is breached twice in the space of 12 months, it automatically becomes a Level 3 offence.

Both Smith and Ganguly were banned because their Level 2 offences automatically lapsed to being a Level 3 offence.

'The penalty for a Level 3 offence shall be a ban for the player or team official concerned of between 2 and 4 Test matches or between 4 and 8 ODI matches.'

That is why ICC President Ehsan Mani said that Ganguly had got a middle-level ban.

Indeed, Ganguly has a history of not getting through the overs in time and been guilty of the offence on six occasions since January 2004, including a ban imposed by match referee Clive Lloyd during the BCCI's platinum jubilee match in Kolkata in December 2004, which was later revoked.

ICC arbitrator Tim Castle, while revoking that ban, had said, 'I am of the opinion that the circumstances were particularly unusual in this game and a large number of them conspired to cause the delays which occurred.'

What's your take? Mail your views to cricket@rediff.co.in