MS Dhoni should have been banned for 2-3 games: Virender Sehwag

Virender Sehwag (© IANS)

New Delhi, April 13 (CRICKETNMORE):  Former India swashbuckling opener Virender Sehwag feels Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who was fined 50 per cent of his match fees for breaching the IPL Code of Conduct, had been let off easy and the Chennai Super Kings' skipper should have been banned for at least two or three games.

On Thursday, during an IPL game between Rajasthan Royals and Chennai, Dhoni walked into the field and protested against the umpire's decision against a no-ball when his team was 18 runs away from victory in the last over.

Stokes, who was bowling the final over, delivered a full toss to Mitchell Santner which was declared a no-ball by umpire Ulhas Gandhe before being overruled by his colleague and square-leg umpire Bruce Oxenford following which Dhoni walked in and lost his cool. 

"Had he done this for the Indian team, I would have been happy. I have never seen him so angry during his captaincy days for the Indian team. So I feel he became a little too emotional for the Chennai team," Sehwag was quoted as saying by Cricbuzz.

"I feel he shouldn't have come to the ground when there are two CSK members already and they were equally inquisitive regarding the no-ball," he opined.

"So I feel Dhoni was let off easy and should have been banned for at least 2-3 games. Because if he did this, tomorrow another captain can do the same. Then what is the value of an umpire?

"I feel he should have been banned for a few games by IPL to set an example. He should have stayed outside and instead have talked to the fourth umpire with the walkie talkie," Sehwag said.

After the match, which Chennai won by four wickets, Dhoni had admitted of breaching the Level 2 offence under Article 2.20 of the IPL's Code of Conduct and accepted the sanction. 

Article 2.20 defines such act as a "conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game" and "is intended to cover all types of conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game and which is not specifically and adequately covered by the specific offences set out elsewhere".