It has been tough going for the Indians ever since they landed in Australia. They've lost most of the games, including a festival game. The much vaunted batting lineup has failed to deliver the goods so far. The bowling has been inconsistent and there really were no expectations from the fielding department anyway.

As if these worries weren't enough, they've been warned for excessive appealing, for not carrying on with the game and have seen 'courageous' umpiring decisions go against them at crucial moments. Now Venkatesh Prasad has been hauled up by the ICC Match Referee and has been fined 35% of his match fee and has also been given a suspended sentence. His crime? An animated show of relief and exuberance after he dismissed Slater. This was termed crude by the Match Referee and hence the sentence.

Not too far away from Melbourne, the West Indies have just been beaten 2-0 in a two Test series by New Zealand. On the fourth day of the Test, Dion Nash was engaged in a war of words with the West Indian batsmen and had to be calmed down by the Zimbabwean umpire Russell Tiffin. However the match referee Raman Subba Row said that there would be no further action taken because of the policy of an umpire giving one warning before the match referee became involved.

It implies that the match referee would take action only if the player repeated his offence. Venkatesh Prasad was not given any warning by either of the umpires. David Shepherd was seen having a chat with Prasad while Slater was walking off after being dismissed. But Prasad did not repeat his performance. So why was the match referee brought into the equation?

It appears that match referees aren't adopting a consistent policy. If players can be pulled up for excessive appealing, then surely abusive language on the field and spearing umpires' doors with stumps are unpardonable offences. Yet many other players get away with it. It is now upto the ICC to clearly define the functions of the Match Referee and also ensure consistency in their judgements.