Berry S: Analyzing the system of ICC Referees (31May94)

TALKING CRICKET: ICC should point finger at ineffectual referees By Scyld Berry

In June's issue of Wisden Cricket Monthly, published yesterday, the system of ICC match referees is rightly held up to scrutiny. It is an experiment which this observer, at any rate, thinks has not been worth the time and money expended on it. Since November 1991, when the system was inaugurated, the 25 ICC match referees have taken action against cricketers on 25 occasions. That is impressive, real law-and-order stuff, until you realise that 'taking action' is a slight euphemism. In 24 out of these 25 incidents, the offending player has been either: a) reprimanded (tut, tut, you naughty boy), or b) severely reprimanded (tut, tut, you very naughty boy), or c) severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct (you are a very, very naughty boy but I'm too ineffectual to do anything about it), or d) fined (which means somebody else like a patriotic businessman coughs up so the player isn't out of pocket at all). In the opinion of Jack Bannister, author of the Wisden article, the only ICC referee to have taken effective, punitive action was Peter Burge. Burly as ever, after doing a job as a debt collector in Queensland, Burge suspended the Pakistani pace bowler Aqib Javed for one one-day international for violating the ICC code of conduct in 1992-93. The effect was wondrous. Not only has Aqib Javed kept a clean sheet since then, but every individual Pakistani. Whereas their team managed four offences in the year before the suspension, there has been none in more than a year since then. The one exception came when the whole team was warned by Burge for 'illtempered' behaviour in a Test in New Zealand, when the home side was also warned. Now I will admit that being an ICC referee makes a fun holiday for former Test players. A month or two abroad, free living, VIP status and nothing to do if the umpires and captains do their job properly. But is it worth the cost? ICC are responsible for the air ticket (normally first-class) for referees, and have National Grid to help with their sponsorship. What is alarming is that the board staging a series must then fork out @100 a day as the referee's emolument, and a similar amount for his internal flights and accommodation - which is not in a bed and breakfast. It may not be a lot of financial skin off the TCCB's nose to pay for Clive Lloyd's services during the series against New Zealand. But to cough up @10,000 a month is asking too much of more indigent countries. Zimbabwe, for example, have a three-Test home series against Sri Lanka lined up for this autumn. Their board cannot afford to pay their players, except three (Alistair Campbell, Andy and Grant Flower) who are contracted players-cum-coaches. They cannot afford to put their players up in a hotel during matches so they have to commute from home. They cannot afford to build grounds in the townships, without which cricket coaching is a cosmetic exercise. Yet they have to fork out ten grand for some old player's trip. Of the first seven referees, appointed when Sir Colin Cowdrey was in charge of ICC, five happened to be Blues at Oxford or Cambridge in the Fifties and Sixties (yes, I thought you'd be surprised how broadly based selection was). However, since David Richards and Clyde Walcott took over, the process has been widened to include graduates from the university of life, who have been more streetwise. It was Donald Carr, an old Oxbridge ref, who had Merv Hughes hauled before him last winter, and proceeded to cane him with a feather. He had already severely reprimanded Hughes in 1992-93 (you very naughty boy) - yes, and warned him as to his future conduct - and then a few months later in South Africa, after Hughes had abused a batsman, this ref fined him a whopping 10 per cent of his match fee. "Merv spends more than that on a round of drinks," one Aussie team-mate commented. The very system makes it difficult for a referee to be effectual. He is a guest of the home country and its board, and is being paid by them. In some cultures it may violate the conventions of hospitality for the guest to start punishing home players. According to the Wisden article, Raman Subba Row was going to take drastic action against Allan Border after the Brisbane Test in 1992-93 for some dissent towards an umpire. The powers-that-be intervened and persuaded Subba Row to do nothing more than fine Border. Sure enough, Border violated in the fifth Test. Although the system has been going only for two to three years, I have become pretty cynical already. When over rates are so slow that play drags on for half an hour and more after the scheduled close, there is usually some excuse for the offending team not being fined. When a referee does 'take action', it seems to be towards the end of the series: he can enjoy an easy life with the home authorities until then, before making sufficient noise for him to be selected again in future. Ian Chappell, over whose eyes not a lot of wool is pulled, reckons this whole business is a waste of money. I agree with him: better to empower the umpires. What is the point of having a policeman who is a hundred yards away from the incident? At the least, if this experiment is to continue, the few effectual referees should be given the jobs. ICC match refereeing should not be a Saga holiday.

(Thanks : The Daily Telegraph)