Cricket legend Cal (Bummy) Symonds believes the committee that presided over the disciplinary hearing of Irving Romaine was “unconstitutional”.Symonds claims that it was unconstitutional for Bermuda Cricket Board first vice -president Allen Richardson to serve on a three-man disciplinary panel that found the former national team captain guilty of verbally abusing umpire Hector Watson during last month’s Premier match between Bailey’s Bay and Willow Cuts at Sea Breeze.“Irving’s disciplinary hearing was unconstitutional because BCB first vice -president Allen Richardson chaired the meeting and vice presidents have no right to serve on any committee,” he argued. “That right is reserved for honorary presidents and vice-presidents.”Richardson declined to comment. But the BCB’s Constitution states that its executives “shall be empowered to appoint or elect such Standing and Working Committees as it may deem necessary to effectively attain the objectives of the organisation.”The constitution further states that Board executives have the authority to “be the final arbiter of any dispute arising out of any cricket match played in Bermuda and, if necessary, to deal with any matter which affects cricket in Bermuda in any way, which may not be provided for in the Constitution or Bye Laws”.Umpires Watson and Melvin Best abandoned the match after Romaine showed serious dissent towards an umpiring decision that went against hosts Bailey’s Bay.The Berkeley Institute PE teacher later publicly expressed remorse for his actions and appealed against his ban that falls outside of ICC ODI standards for first time offenders who commit the same Level Three offence.“I am appealing basically because I have played cricket all around the world and for Bailey’s Bay for 23 years and never once been written up,” Romaine said, in a previous interview.“I think the ban is lengthy for someone going before the disciplinary committee for the first time.”While Symonds doesn’t condone his nephew’s actions, he too feels that the nine-month ban imposed on the player was way over the top.“I thought that the punishment was too harsh because Irving has never been in problems before,” he said. “The nine-month ban was uncalled for and if anything he should have received three or two games.”Symonds, who captained St George’s to eight Cup Match triumphs in the 1960s, believes umpire Watson is equally as culpable for bringing the ill-fated match at Sea Breeze Oval into disrepute.“Hector was the senior umpire there that day and he is the one who brought the game into disrepute by walking off the field,” he said.“Even in Test matches you have bowlers saying things to umpires but you don’t see them walking off the field because they would get scolded.“Umpires do not have any right to walk off the field for taking abuse.If you take abuse then as the umpire you write the player up in the book and let them come under the scrutiny of the Bermuda Cricket Board rather than walk off the field and abandon the game.”MCC cricket chairman Mike Griffith, who currently serves on the England and Wales Cricket Board disciplinary committee, said umpires would never take such drastic action back in the United Kingdom.“The umpires wouldn’t walk off the field in the UK,” he told The Royal Gazette during the MCC’s tour of the island earlier this month.“Instead they would write a report at the end of the match and that would be seen by the Board and then acted upon accordingly.”