In a fresh display of its strict anti-corruption and match-day compliance stance, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Rajasthan Royals team manager Romi Bhinder for violating IPL match-day regulations.
BCCI action over breach of match-day protocol
- The incident took place during the Rajasthan Royals’ IPL 2026 encounter against Royal Challengers Bengaluru at the ACA Stadium in Guwahati on April 10.
- During the match, Bhinder was found using a mobile phone while inside the team dugout, which is contrary to the IPL’s Players and Match Officials Area (PMOA) rules.
- The BCCI’s Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU), led by Sharad Kumar, issued a show-cause notice to Bhinder seeking his explanation.
- After examining Bhinder’s response, the BCCI concluded that it was not satisfactory and proceeded with disciplinary action.
- BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia stated that Bhinder was held guilty of breaching the protocol and that the offence was treated as his first, leading to a Rs 1 lakh fine coupled with a warning.
- Bhinder later acknowledged the lapse and issued an unconditional apology, as reflected in an IPL media advisory.
Under the IPL’s PMOA framework, mobile phones and other communication devices are barred in sensitive zones such as the dugout. The only permitted use is within designated dressing-room areas, while the rest of the time devices are required to be switched off and handed over to the team’s security liaison officer when personnel arrive at the venue. Limited roles—such as analysts positioned at approved stations—are allowed to use authorised devices.
The matter drew attention after footage indicated Bhinder was scrolling on his smartphone in the dugout, with young Rajasthan batter Vaibhav Sooryavanshi seated nearby.
Some reports suggested Bhinder may have been dealing with health concerns, which could have contributed to the mistake. However, the BCCI maintained that breaches of protocol cannot be ignored.
One account highlighted that, even if the act was inadvertent, someone with Bhinder’s experience should have been aware of the rules, and that the board’s handling of the case was appropriate given the circumstances.
