Kyle Jamieson Code of Conduct Breach: On Friday in Jaipur, Delhi Capitals chased the score of 225 against Rajasthan Royals and won by 7 wickets. Delhi, which was all out for 75 runs in its last match, had never chased such a big score before. KL Rahul played an important role in the fourth victory of the visiting team in the current season. At the same time, during the match, Delhi bowler Kyle Jamieson did a shameful act. After which BCCI had to take major action against him.

Read :- Will Rohit Sharma play today’s match? Coach Mahela Jayawardene gave a big update on Hitman

Actually, Rajasthan Royals, who came to bat first in Jaipur, had a very bad start. Both openers Vaibhav Suryavanshi and Yashasvi Jaiswal, who have been performing brilliantly so far, returned to the pavilion cheaply. But, after bowling out Suryavanshi, Kyle Jamieson celebrated in such a way, which is being seen as an attempt to provoke or tease the player of the opposing team. Now BCCI has taken strict action on this. Jamieson has been found guilty of violating Article 2.5 of the IPL Code of Conduct.

According to a statement issued by the IPL, Delhi Capitals bowler Kyle Jamieson has received one demerit point and been warned for violating Level 1 of the Code of Conduct for IPL players and team officials during match number 43 against Rajasthan Royals (RR) at the Sawai Mansingh Stadium in Jaipur. Jamieson was found to have breached Article 2.5 of the IPL Code of Conduct, which relates to “using language, actions or gestures that are demeaning or likely to provoke an aggressive reaction from another player in a match.”

The incident occurred in the second over of the first innings, when after dismissing Vaibhav Suryavanshi, Jamieson was found standing too close to him in an aggressive manner, which could have provoked an aggressive reaction from the batsman. Jamieson pleaded guilty and accepted the punishment handed down by match referee Rajeev Seth.

Read :- RCB captain Rajat Patidar was completely ‘Not Out’! Commentators and experts raised questions on the third umpire’s decision