ICC has penchant for shooting itself in the foot
We have this extraordinary situation
Omar Kureishi
28-Nov-2001
We have this extraordinary situation. Both parties are in
the wrong, the ICC and the Board of Control for Cricket in
India (BCCI). The ICC has legality on its side and very
little else.
The BCCI has a righteous sense of grievance but has clearly
flouted ICC rules. The United Cricket Board of South Africa
acted entirely on its government's instructions and can be
considered a benevolent neutral, a neutrality that clearly
benefits one party.
There is, first of all, Mike Denness the match referee who
acted like a Roman Emperor (Rome has spoken, the case is
closed) but who, in the process of handing out some very
harsh decisions, himself did not follow the laid-out
procedure. For example, by fining Sachin Tendulkar and
banning him for one match, he found him guilty of balltampering. In that case, the 'tampered' ball should have
been changed. It wasn't. This a breach of the law.
Furthermore, the ball is in the possession of the umpires
after every over and they can inspect it whenever they like.
The umpires did not report any tampering with the ball to
the match-referee. This means Denness went by what he saw on
television. Could he not have got on the inter-com to the
umpires and appraised them of what he had seen? Or was he
not on speaking terms with the umpires?
In fact, in all the decisions he took, he acted on his own,
there were no complaints from the umpires and the matchreferee may have the authority to act arbitrarily but this
violates the spirit of the rules. The umpires cannot be
marginalised or worse, ignored. To the extent that there is
no appeal against the match referee's decisions (which goes
against natural justice) the ICC's own hands were tied,
proving yet again that the law is an ass.
The ICC has a penchant for shooting itself in the foot. It
could easily have mollified Jagmohan Dalmiya by holding the
punishments in abeyance till a special committee reviewed
them on the grounds that they were excessively harsh.
In other words a certain amount of flexibility could have
been shown. As matters stand, the match-referee has more
powers than the President of the United States. He, after
all, can be impeached for abuse of power and this is
precisely what Denness did - abuse power. He converted the
match referee into a one man judge, jury and hangman. More
than that he changed the ICC code of conduct into a penal
code.
But as matters stood, the ICC had no option but to stand by
Denness. Not to have done so would have been to abdicate its
authority. I think some sort of via media could have been
worked out between Dalmiya and Malcolm Gray and now
England's tour of India has been put under stress.
Will India play Virender Sehwag who was banned for one Test
match? He did not play in the Centurion Test match but since
the ICC declared that an unofficial Test match, the ban on
him stays, according to the ICC. India, on the other hand,
do not accept the match referee's punishments and wants them
reviewed (no provision exists for this) and so there is a
stand-off. It can be avoided by dropping Sehwag but that
would be to accept the ruling of Denness.
Instinctively, I am on the side of the Indian Cricket Board
because the ICC has never been even-handed and seems to have
one set of rules for countries from the sub-continent and
another set of rules for the others. But legally India's
position is untenable. Denness may have been a hanging-judge
but he was the match referee and had been accepted by India
at the start of the series.
The ICC as it is presently structured is seriously flawed
and I think a team of management consultants (who should not
be from Australia or England) should be brought in and the
ICC should be re-vamped in two important respects, the match
referee's post should be abolished and the umpires should
become final arbiters of what is fair or unfair play and
Paul Condon's Anti-Corruption Unit should be shown the door.
Investigation of match-fixing should be left to the police
and the ICC has no business to be running a detective
agency.
Throughout this row which is escalating by the day, one
element has been missing which is common sense. Even though
he had absolute, arbitrary powers, Denness should have
consulted umpires, issued warnings to the two captains, kept
the lines of communications open.
The media pounced on the row, throwing objectivity down the
drain and taking up fixed, emotive positions. The South
African position has changed. Suddenly, it finds that if the
cricket world were to split the Cricket World Cup 2003 could
be in danger. Having acted in support of India South Africa
is fast back-tracking. Is the shadow of Ali Bacher looming
around?
The ICC has had its authority challenged and it has
responded in its own blundering way. Which is to treat India
as if it was still a part of the British Empire, albeit the
brightest jewel in the crown, in that it has the sponsors
and the money. But the issue is too minor to have made it a
matter of national pride.
Personally, I don't think Tendulkar was guilty of balltampering and if the Indian players were appealing
excessively, so too were the South Africans, particularly
Shaun Pollock but they got off scot-free. It is this that
rankles. I don't think we should have two Australians
running cricket. That is why there is talk that cricket will
split on racial lines.