Key Takeaways
- An ICC demerit point was issued to Yashasvi Jaiswal after a heated send-off aimed at Sri Lanka’s Fernando during the second India vs Sri Lanka Test.
- Former India batter Sanjay Manjrekar has publicly slammed the ICC and BCCI, saying young stars like Jaiswal and Vaibhav Sooryavanshi are being let off too easily.
- Sri Lanka’s Prabath Jayasuriya was also sanctioned in the same Test, showing the ICC’s disciplinary net is not falling on India alone.
- The row has reopened a bigger question in Indian cricket: does one demerit point actually change behaviour, or is it just paperwork?
What Exactly Happened Between Jaiswal and Fernando?
The flashpoint came mid-session, when Jaiswal, fresh off getting a wicket-adjacent moment, turned to give Fernando a send-off that match officials deemed to have crossed a line. Under the ICC Code of Conduct, that sort of send-off typically falls into the lower-tier offence bracket — the kind that draws a fine and one demerit point rather than a suspension. It’s not a minor thing, but it’s also not the disciplinary equivalent of a red card.
What turned this into a bigger story wasn’t the incident itself. It was the timing — right in the middle of a tense IND vs SL series where tempers on both sides have been fraying — and the fact that a giant of Indian batting punditry decided to make it a governance issue rather than a one-off moment.
Why Is an ICC Demerit Point Suddenly Such a Big Deal?
On paper, an ICC demerit point is a modest punishment. It’s a warning shot, not a ban. But Manjrekar’s point is less about this one incident and more about a pattern he believes he’s seeing — young Indian players getting the benefit of the doubt from match referees while their conduct, in his view, keeps edging closer to the line.
That’s a strong claim, and it deserves scrutiny rather than blind agreement. Demerit points are handed out by match referees case by case, and different officials interpret the same Code of Conduct with slightly different thresholds. That inconsistency — not a conspiracy favouring any one board — is usually the more boring, more accurate explanation. Still, boring explanations don’t stop a story from trending, and this one has legs precisely because it taps into a real, long-running frustration about how discipline gets applied unevenly across world cricket.
How the ICC Demerit Point System Actually Works
| Offence Level | Typical Examples | Usual Sanction |
| Level 1 | Excessive appealing, send-offs, dissent | Fine + 1 demerit point |
| Level 2 | Abuse of cricket equipment, more serious dissent | Fine + 2 demerit points |
| Level 3 | Intimidating an umpire, serious personal abuse | Ban of 1-2 Tests/matches |
| Level 4 | Threatening violence, match-fixing conduct | Ban of up to a full career, in extreme cases |
Four demerit points inside twenty-four months converts into a suspension point, and two suspension points mean a ban. So Jaiswal’s single point, by itself, is nowhere near suspension territory. The concern Manjrekar is raising is less about this incident crossing a threshold and more about whether the culture around these send-offs is drifting in the wrong direction.
What Did Manjrekar Actually Say About the ICC and BCCI?
Manjrekar’s criticism, reported widely across Indian sports media this week, essentially argues that both the ICC and the BCCI have a role to play here — the ICC in how strictly it applies its own Code of Conduct, and the BCCI in how it counsels young players before these situations even arise. His comments singled out Jaiswal’s demerit point and folded in broader unease about Sooryavanshi’s on-field conduct as a teenager thrust into senior cricket far earlier than most.
It’s a fair enough concern in principle. India’s production line of teenage talent — Sooryavanshi debuted for India well before most players even finish domestic cricket — means these players are learning how to carry themselves on the biggest stage in real time, in front of cameras and reviewers who miss nothing. That’s a genuinely hard environment to grow up in, and it cuts both ways: harsher scrutiny is fair, but so is a bit of patience.
Was Sri Lanka’s Prabath Jayasuriya Sanctioned Too?
Yes — and this matters for anyone framing this purely as an India problem. Sri Lanka’s veteran spinner Prabath Jayasuriya was also sanctioned during the same second Test, a reminder that match referees were watching both dressing rooms closely, not just India’s. Sonal Dinusha, another Sri Lankan bowler, has separately been making headlines for a rare bowling record against India, joining names like Zaheer Abbas and Everton Weekes on lists reserved for players who’ve troubled Indian batting line-ups in Tests.
Put together, it paints a picture of a series that’s been feisty from both ends — not a one-sided disciplinary crackdown on India. For readers following the Yashasvi Jaiswal story specifically, that context matters: this is a hard-fought contest, not a morality tale with one villain.
How Rare Is a Follow-On Win Against Sri Lanka Anyway?
The series has also revived interest in a very specific piece of cricket trivia: how often has India actually won a Test after enforcing, or being put in, a follow-on situation against Sri Lanka? India’s own history with the follow-on is a mixed bag globally — it’s one of the more psychologically loaded situations in Test cricket, because a team that’s already behind by a big margin either has to bat out danger or bowl out a tired opposition twice in the same match.
- Follow-on situations are rare in modern Tests — most captains prefer to bat again themselves to control the game.
- Historically, teams enforcing the follow-on win a clear majority of those Tests, simply because the gap in first-innings runs is usually decisive.
- Against Sri Lanka specifically, India’s Test record leans strongly in India’s favour at home, though away results have been tighter.
This context is exactly why a single send-off, and one ICC demerit point, has snowballed into a bigger conversation — the series itself has been tense enough that every flashpoint gets magnified.
Does One Demerit Point Actually Change Player Behaviour?
This is the more interesting question buried under the outrage. Fines and demerit points are meant to be deterrents, but plenty of players openly admit the money involved barely registers for someone earning IPL and central contract money. What actually changes behaviour, most current and former players will tell you, is repeated conversations with team management and, occasionally, public criticism from voices like Manjrekar’s that shape how a player is perceived back home.
In that sense, an ICC demerit point functions less as punishment and more as a marker — a paper trail that shows a pattern if it repeats. One point means very little. Three or four in quick succession would mean a great deal, and that’s the outcome everyone from the BCCI to Jaiswal himself will want to avoid.
FAQ
What is an ICC demerit point?
It’s a disciplinary mark under the ICC Code of Conduct given for breaches like send-offs, dissent, or equipment abuse. Four points within twenty-four months trigger a suspension.
Why did Yashasvi Jaiswal get an ICC demerit point?
He was sanctioned for a heated send-off directed at Sri Lanka’s Fernando during the second India vs Sri Lanka Test, which match officials classed as a Level 1 breach.
Did Sri Lankan players also get sanctioned in the same Test?
Yes. Sri Lanka’s Prabath Jayasuriya was also sanctioned during the same match, showing the disciplinary scrutiny wasn’t limited to India’s team.
What did Sanjay Manjrekar say about the ICC and BCCI?
Manjrekar criticised both bodies for what he called leniency toward young Indian players, naming Jaiswal and Vaibhav Sooryavanshi in his comments this week.
How many demerit points lead to a ban in cricket?
Four demerit points within a rolling twenty-four-month period convert into a suspension point, and two suspension points typically result in a playing ban.
Conclusion
One ICC demerit point was never going to end Jaiswal’s series. What it’s done instead is reopen a debate Indian cricket keeps circling back to — how young stars are coached, criticised, and held accountable in equal measure. That conversation, not the point itself, is what’s actually worth watching as this series plays out.