ICC Outrage Is Rough Justice For Lankans (15 Dec 1995)

ICC outrage is rough justice for Lankans

By Mike Coward

THE International Cricket Council (ICC) has again abrogated its responsibility to the game and its players.

The ham-fisted handling of the ball-tampering affair in Perth reaffirms the ineptitude and impotence of the game`s controlling body and its designated represntatives.

SERIOUSLY

While the ICC has rarely been taken seriously since its inauguration as the Imperial Cricket Conference in 1909, its credibility and relevance has never been so seriously and publicly questioned. For the second time in a matter of months, the welfare of the game has been seriously damaged: the ball tampering furore following hard on the Malik bribery affair which, inexplicably and inexcusably, has been allowed to fester for more than a year.

LATEST BLIGHT

This latest blight on the game has again highlighted the deficiencies of the ICC`s Code of Conduct. Sri Lanka, universally known for their scrupulous fairness as a cricket team, stand accused of cheating in a Test match. To a man, the Sri Lankans are affronted. Captain Arjuna Ranatunga was close to tears, such was his anger on Saturday night. In cricket and cultural terms, the Sri Lankans have been insulted. And, under the ICC`s Code, they have no recourse. They are not able to defend themselves.

OUTRAGEOUS

It is an outrageous situation and one that must be addressed immediately by the ICC`s chief executive, David Richards, and chairman, Sir Clyde Walcott. Clause seven of the Code states: ``Players and team officials shall not disclose or comment upon any alleged breach of the Code or upon any hearing, report or decision arising from such breach``. It is understood the management of the Sri Lankan team will strongly protest this regulation and the overwhelming sense of injustice they feel in a written report to Graham Dowling, the ICC`s referee at this Test.

REPORT

Dowling, presumably, will forward the report to Richards and Walcott.

Of course, under ICC rules, the referee also is unable to make any public comment so Dowling could not be asked why umpires Khizar Hayat (Pakistan) and Peter Parker (Australia) did not follow the letter of the law and change the ball which they were convinced had been tampered with. They are culpable for tampering with any evidence by allowing the ball to remain in use. Michael Slater then effectively destroyed the evidence as he savaged the bowling on his way to a memorable 219.

CHARACTER

Yet, still, the character and honesty of the Sri Lankans team is being loudly questioned.

Why the ICC does not give its referees some identity and invest in their vast knowledge and experience which has earned them their appointment in the first place is utterly bewildering.

Surely, if they are responsible enough to oversee the running of a Test match they can talk about it responsibly. On Saturday, Dowling released the damning four-paragraph statement on a sheet of A4 paper bearing the ICC letterhead.

REPUTATION

John Reid, a former New Zealand captain who for a time enjoyed a reputation as a particularly strong ICC referee, both formally and informally, tried valiantly to convince Richards that for the overall benefit of the game the referee should have the right to explain his judgments and decisions.

The appeals have fallen on deaf ears. The ball tampering controvery could not have come at a worse time for the Sri Lankan team.

TENTERHOOKS

To a man they were on tenterhooks as they waited for Hayat and Parker`s assessment of the legitimacy of off-spinner Muttiah Muralidharan`s bowling action.

Such had been the press speculation about Muralidharan`s action that the team was distracted from the time they went into the field on Saturday.

And they could scarcely conceal their dismay when, by the fact when he bowled the 17th over, Muralidharan was, implicated in the ball tampering.

OFFICIAL

As is the case when an official does not have the power to defuse an explosive situation speculative stories soon circulate.

This was the case yesterday when the Sri Lankans remained unconvinced that Parker was emphatic in his support of Hayat`s concerns about the ball as Dowling claimed in his statement.

Furthermore, it is thought Ranatunga implored the umpires to change the ball they believed had been damaged in an unnatural way.

The umpires chose to ignore his plea.

CONTROVERSY

Regrettably, the controversy deflected attention from the Australian batting test and deprived Slater, Mark Waugh and Ricky Ponting of even bolder headlines.

Source :: Lake House/Lanka Internet Services Ltd