Asian Power & Lawyers for Match Referees
I've stopped laughing now Obaid. I've always liked how you can make the funniest comments about a very serious issue. I thought of commenting but then I had too many thoughts, thus I'm blogging instead.
About 17 months back at the Oval in London, Darrell Hair accused the Pakistan team of ball tampering. The events that unfolded after that resulted in the first ever test match in history to be forfieted. The match referee could not convince the Pakistan team and later on Darrell Hair to re-start the match. A hearing for the incident declared that Pakistan had not tampered with the ball.
About 1 month back at Sydney, Steve Bucknor gave too many decisions against India resulting in India losing a test that looked like heading for a draw. In the same test Harbhajan was accused of racism by the Aussies and banned for 3 tests by the match referee. A hearing that took place following an appeal by the Indians declared that Harbajhan had not made a racist remark.
In both cases the match referee was Mike Proctor. In both cases a charge was made against an Asian team. In both cases the ICC acted by removing the umpires. And in both cases the Asian teams got the charges overturned.
You see what I'm getting at?
The solution to the 1st point, i.e. the match referee, IMO is that maybe the match referee should not be a former cricketer but a lawyer. If the match referee's task is to make sure the match is played according to the rules and in the right spirit, act as the intermediary between two arguing teams, accept or deny charges against players, and decide on fines or bans then this job can be best done by a lawyer rather than a cricketer. Does any university offer a degree in Cricket Law?
The 2nd point about charges against Asian teams. History shows that Asian cricketers have had the most complaints against them, Asian cricketers have faced the most number of fines and bans for a variety of reasons, and Asian cricketers have been at the wrong side of umpiring errors for a long long time. Pakistan lost the test series in WI in 2001 due to bad umpiring. Pakistan lost the 1987 semi final due to bad umpiring. Pakistan lost the Perth test in 1999 due to bad umpiring. And India lost the Sydney test due to bad umpiring. I'm sure there are more examples. Why Asians? Pakistan followed by the Asian Bloc were instrumental in the introduction of neutral umpires just because of these issues. But what do you when the neutral umpires turn against you?
That brings me to the 3rd point, i.e. removal of Darell Hair from the elite panel and removal of Steve Bucknor from the subsequent tests.
There is no doubt that India followed by the Asian Bloc holds a majority position within the ICC, not only in terms of number of full members but also in terms of number of associate members and the amount of revenue generated. So why should they not use this power to get what they want. For decades England and Australia held veto rights within the ICC. Did the Asians complain? Yes they did but it took decades for the complaints to be heard. If the Asian teams feel victimized should they not act against it? Would Australia or England have remained quiet had they been accused of ball tampering? Would either of them have stayed quiet had they felt that they lost a test due to bad umpiring?
And now for the final point about the charges being overturned. In both the cases the charges were dropped but in a very diplomatic way. While Inzamam was not charged for ball tampering, he was for bringing the game into disrepute. And Harbajhan was not charged for a racist remark but for a derogatory one.
Aussie cricketers have openly claimed that they are not happy with the verdict against Harbajhan and they have even gone on to say that they don't like the use of power by India. And all this despite India dropping the charges against Hogg after a meeting between the captains. Now I don't advocate the use of chartered planes or threats of boycotts but I don't think it was either of these factors that resulted in Bhajji's ban being removed.
Cricket Australia feared a law suit, which would have damaged their coffers unlike the mega bucks making BCCI. Australian cricketers feared the backlash from India, which would have hurt their earnings from the IPL, endorsements, and bollywood movies. Maybe the boycott threat made CA feel that they would make huge losses but I doubt India would have gone ahead with that. Cricket has more often than not prevailed over these issues and I think cricket would have continued regardless of the decision on Bhajji.
Conclusion? None really.
India is the cricket superpower off the field and everyone should accept that. I think everyone does but their little use of the power should not be criticized. Anyone in power will use it to their advantage. Asians have been at the wrong side of decisions from umpires and match referees and its high time they do something against it - they have done so over the last year and a half and it has pissed of Australia. But everything was hunky dory when the Asians were meek and couldn't stand up for themselves and we were told that it was only a game and we and to take it in our stride.
I'll say the same to CA and the Aussies - take it in your stride, its just a game.
About 17 months back at the Oval in London, Darrell Hair accused the Pakistan team of ball tampering. The events that unfolded after that resulted in the first ever test match in history to be forfieted. The match referee could not convince the Pakistan team and later on Darrell Hair to re-start the match. A hearing for the incident declared that Pakistan had not tampered with the ball.
About 1 month back at Sydney, Steve Bucknor gave too many decisions against India resulting in India losing a test that looked like heading for a draw. In the same test Harbhajan was accused of racism by the Aussies and banned for 3 tests by the match referee. A hearing that took place following an appeal by the Indians declared that Harbajhan had not made a racist remark.
In both cases the match referee was Mike Proctor. In both cases a charge was made against an Asian team. In both cases the ICC acted by removing the umpires. And in both cases the Asian teams got the charges overturned.
You see what I'm getting at?
The solution to the 1st point, i.e. the match referee, IMO is that maybe the match referee should not be a former cricketer but a lawyer. If the match referee's task is to make sure the match is played according to the rules and in the right spirit, act as the intermediary between two arguing teams, accept or deny charges against players, and decide on fines or bans then this job can be best done by a lawyer rather than a cricketer. Does any university offer a degree in Cricket Law?
The 2nd point about charges against Asian teams. History shows that Asian cricketers have had the most complaints against them, Asian cricketers have faced the most number of fines and bans for a variety of reasons, and Asian cricketers have been at the wrong side of umpiring errors for a long long time. Pakistan lost the test series in WI in 2001 due to bad umpiring. Pakistan lost the 1987 semi final due to bad umpiring. Pakistan lost the Perth test in 1999 due to bad umpiring. And India lost the Sydney test due to bad umpiring. I'm sure there are more examples. Why Asians? Pakistan followed by the Asian Bloc were instrumental in the introduction of neutral umpires just because of these issues. But what do you when the neutral umpires turn against you?
That brings me to the 3rd point, i.e. removal of Darell Hair from the elite panel and removal of Steve Bucknor from the subsequent tests.
There is no doubt that India followed by the Asian Bloc holds a majority position within the ICC, not only in terms of number of full members but also in terms of number of associate members and the amount of revenue generated. So why should they not use this power to get what they want. For decades England and Australia held veto rights within the ICC. Did the Asians complain? Yes they did but it took decades for the complaints to be heard. If the Asian teams feel victimized should they not act against it? Would Australia or England have remained quiet had they been accused of ball tampering? Would either of them have stayed quiet had they felt that they lost a test due to bad umpiring?
And now for the final point about the charges being overturned. In both the cases the charges were dropped but in a very diplomatic way. While Inzamam was not charged for ball tampering, he was for bringing the game into disrepute. And Harbajhan was not charged for a racist remark but for a derogatory one.
Aussie cricketers have openly claimed that they are not happy with the verdict against Harbajhan and they have even gone on to say that they don't like the use of power by India. And all this despite India dropping the charges against Hogg after a meeting between the captains. Now I don't advocate the use of chartered planes or threats of boycotts but I don't think it was either of these factors that resulted in Bhajji's ban being removed.
Cricket Australia feared a law suit, which would have damaged their coffers unlike the mega bucks making BCCI. Australian cricketers feared the backlash from India, which would have hurt their earnings from the IPL, endorsements, and bollywood movies. Maybe the boycott threat made CA feel that they would make huge losses but I doubt India would have gone ahead with that. Cricket has more often than not prevailed over these issues and I think cricket would have continued regardless of the decision on Bhajji.
Conclusion? None really.
India is the cricket superpower off the field and everyone should accept that. I think everyone does but their little use of the power should not be criticized. Anyone in power will use it to their advantage. Asians have been at the wrong side of decisions from umpires and match referees and its high time they do something against it - they have done so over the last year and a half and it has pissed of Australia. But everything was hunky dory when the Asians were meek and couldn't stand up for themselves and we were told that it was only a game and we and to take it in our stride.
I'll say the same to CA and the Aussies - take it in your stride, its just a game.
.jpg)
