The Hindu : Sport / Cricket : Yet another instance of blatant bias

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jun 13, 2006

Sport

Sport - Cricket

Yet another instance of blatant bias

The definition of frustration and dissent seems to be different in the ICC's dictionary, writes Makarand Waingankar

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has yet again blatantly showcased its biases for the cricketing world to bow to. There seem to be two sets of rules. One for the renowned players from the other countries and the other for Indian players.

How else does one explain the statement issued by the ICC GM-Cricket Dave Richardson to the news agencies that, "Lara showed a little frustration but it was borne out of circumstances. He got frustrated (after) the umpire forced the players to make a decision. He did get a little frustrated, snatching the ball from the umpire, but he certainly did not show dissent." The definition of frustration and dissent seems to be different in the ICC's dictionary.

If Sehwag as bowler could be fined 20% of his match fee for celebrating the fall of a wicket without appealing to the umpire, why couldn't those laws be applied to censure Brian Lara? It was a case for Level 2 offence — Showing serious dissent at an umpire's decision by word or action — to be applied.

Rather complicated

Cricket basically is a simple game, but of late, the ICC has been politicising it by making it so complicated that the Umpires and Match Referees have on many occasions taken advantage of particular laws to cover their own blunders.

Former Match Referee Mike Denness was perhaps the gentleman who pioneered for the ICC how double standards could be applied when India were involved. At that time, the ICC found their position hard to defend because of the intensity with which the BCCI defended Indian players. But this time, the ICC's defence of Lara has exhibited its bias for all to see in its absolute brazenness.

Though the Lara-Dhoni issue showed how an inexperienced umpire can get rattled by the reputation of a player, the ICC is defending the decision of umpire Asad Rauf who has been promoted to Test status after officiating in only three ODIs.

Major responsibility

The preamble of `The Laws Of The Game' states `Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains'.

Did Brian Charles Lara uphold the spirit of fair play as a captain when he snatched the ball from the hands of an umpire is the question that needs to be answered. Is it a bigger crime not to appeal to an umpire than it is for a reputed captain to snatch the ball from the hands of an umpire?

Sehwag was found to have breached Section 1.5 of the ICC Code which relates to "the practice of celebrating a dismissal before the decision has been given".

When a batsman is seen walking towards the pavilion after getting caught, anyone even remotely involved in cricket expects joyous emotions of the bowler and fielders, but the law expects a bowler to appeal instead. How ridiculous can one get? Are cricketers a separate subspecies to be denied the common reaction?

Had Asad Rauf applied Level 2 as has been opined by some former ICC umpires since the controversy, the crisis could have been avoided.

The ICC will be better served reviewing and rectifying the outlandish decisions of its officials rather than defending their actions. The BCCI would be justified in questioning the double standard of the ICC, and with the World Cup eight months away, even a minor misinterpretation of the law is unaffordable.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail