THE absence of a voice of reason leads to an emotional reaction. This on the part of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, its President Jagmohan Dalmiya in particular, had led to the face-off with the International Cricket Council (ICC).
That the ICC and the BCCI reached an acceptable solution on the issues concerning the Mohali Test of the India-England series is another matter altogether. For it was largely a face-saving exercise for both parties. The net result is that Virender Sehwag, the man in question, has missed the first Test owing to the one-match suspension, which was what the second half of the controversy was all about.
To begin with, India should have played under protest and not insisted on the match referee Mike Denness being replaced. As it stood, five of the six players pulled up were given suspended sentences, which is just a warning, and Virender Sehwag alone was booked. Since his career is only two Tests old, the BCCI should have fallen in line with the match referee.
There was no logic behind Dalmiya asking Denness to be replaced. Anyway, Denness is not the first match referee seemingly biased against Indians. He is the second from the recent past, and the BCCI should have taken this up at the ICC committee meeting instead of throwing a tantrum on the world stage, if one can call it a tantrum that is.
The fundamental issue at stake for the ICC in BCCI's demand for the removal of Denness for the third Test (the BCCI, at its working committee has decided to permanently boycott Mike Denness) is its right, as the world governing body for cricket, to appoint referees and umpires, and for those officials to make decisions which are respected by both players and Boards. "Without this right, the sport could descend into anarchy," said the ICC recently.
In a media release, the world governing body of cricket clarified, "It is also important to understand that Mike Denness did not make these decisions in isolation: with the exception of Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly, the other four players were reported by the umpires, one a South African, the other a Zimbabwean.
"It would have been very easy for the ICC to have replaced Mike Denness with an alternative referee and thereby ducked this issue, but that would have set a very dangerous precedent. Thereafter, any country not happy with an umpire or referee for whatever reason, could have chosen to refuse to play a match. Clearly this would be an untenable situation."
The ICC was determined that the disciplinary action should stand, and so it did. It had said that suggestions for potential changes to the disciplinary process will be discussed at the next ICC Executive Board meeting (which was what eventually decided), "but in the mean time, our interests are to uphold the rights of the match officials and the integrity of cricket."
Going by the book, the ICC had every right to withdraw Test match status from the Centurion contest. The ICC Code of Conduct Standard Playing Conditions and Other Regulations accepted and approved by the ICC Executive Board, state the following regarding referees:
'An ICC Referee shall a) be appointed by the ICC President or the ICC Chief Executive, and b) shall be independent of any Member or Member country competing in any Test match or ODI match for which he is appointed, c) neither team will have a right of objection to a referee's appointment. The referee shall be the independent representative of the ICC at all Test matches and ODI matches....'
India and South Africa chose to reject the properly appointed ICC referee in this instance and on this basis, the match was stripped off its Test status (the ICC, prior to the match, stressed that none of the officials appointed by the UCBSA - match referee Denis Lindsay and umpires Rudi Koertzen and Dave Orchard - would be acting as ICC representatives).
Sourav Ganguly's reactions on the whole gave one the feeling that he was under the misconception that a confrontation would strengthen his hand as captain. Mysteriously though, he found a way to miss the 'Test' in question.
The issue then moved on to whether India will play Sehwag in the first Test against England. Jagmohan Dalmiya was well on way to making it a prestige issue. In fact, the BCCI, at its working committee meeting, passed a resolution that the Centurion 'Test' was official and that Sehwag, who missed that game, is eligible to play the first Test against England.
This was in direct defiance of the ICC, which had made its stand very clear. Malcolm Speed, the ICC CEO, reiterated the stand by issuing an ultimatum, mid-day November 30 (Kolkata time), asking BCCI to advice the ICC on its decision in respect of Sehwag in connection with the Mohali Test.
In reply to the ultimatum, Dalmiya shot out a rejoinder in which he was going off on a tangent, saying that "the Players & Team Officials Code of Conduct specifically forbids the disclosure of the composition of the team and pronounces appropriate penalties." The gist of which was that only on the morning of the match will the cricketing world come to know the outcome.
It is noteworthy on an overall context that at the press briefing after the BCCI working committee meeting, Dalmiya had sent a feeler to the ICC through the media when he said, "we have to sort things out in a sporting manner. We are open for explanation from the ICC and hope to sort things out amicably."
He had further added that the ICC, by turning down BCCI's request to replace Denness or to keep his decision in abeyance for the Centurion Test, had not shown any consideration for the National sentiments in India nor called the BCCI to explain its position.
Meanwhile, Percy Sonn, the President of the United Cricket Board of South Africa, supported this position to ICC President Malcolm Gray, by stating that the South African Board did not regard the match as an official Test match. And in this issue, the ICC had the backing of eight out of the 10 Test members. In short, had the stand-off continued, the chances of it spiralling into a full-blown confrontation was indeed very bright.
By then the BCCI President has well and truly put across his point of the discriminating attitudes of match referees towards India. So much so that Malcolm Gray has said that the five-man panel of match referees, once constituted and made operational in April of 2002, would function in a unified manner when it came to interpreting and enforcing the rules and that the question of reviewing the performance and decisions of match referees would be considered seriously and appropriate measures put in place.
It was time Dalmiya stepped down and allowed the storm to blow over in the best interest of the game. Which was what he did eventually. The ICC extended the D Day by another 24 hours and called for a meeting with Dalmiya in Kuala Lumpur.
They didn't have to go that far, though. An acceptable solution was reached on phone where it was also decided that:
"The ICC will establish a Commission (the ICC Referees Commission) to examine and report to the ICC Executive Board on whether the ICC Referee followed the procedures and acted in accordance with the ICC Code of Conduct, including the guidelines on the principles of natural justice as set out on page 55 of the Code, during the second Test match between India and South Africa from 16th to 20th November 2001 at Port Elizabeth.
"The Commission will be appointed by the ICC in consultation with the BCCI. The Commission will consist of persons of the highest reputation and at least two of them will be reputed former cricketers.
"The Referees Commission will also be asked to advise whether the following should be adopted as a part of the current restructuring of the ICC Match Referees Panel:
(a) Whether there should be a right of appeal against a decision of a Match Referee.
(b) If there is to be a right of appeal, the best way to structure the system of appeals so that it is not used to obtain an unfair advantage.
(c) Whether there should be an ICC Code of Conduct for Match Referees.
(d) How ICC can best achieve consistency in the penalties imposed by Match Referees.
(e) Whether it should be obligatory on the part of the ICC referees to explain their decisions to the media and the public, in the best interests of the game.
The President of the BCCI has confirmed his intention to raise grievances relating to this issue at the next meeting of the ICC Executive Board in March 2002. The ICC President Gray has welcomed this as the correct forum for the matters to be discussed in full, provided that the BCCI makes a written submission to the ICC concerning the second Test match in South Africa."
In the end, Dalmiya had made his point, but the ICC got its way. Controversies are indeed good for the game.
Blow by blow account of the crisisTHE following is the blow by blow account of the crisis in international cricket following the harsh punishments handed down to six Indian crcketers by ICC match referee Mike Denness.
Nov 19: Denness punishes six Indian players including skipper Sourav Ganguly and Sachin Tendulkar during the second Test against South Africa at Port Elizabeth.
Nov 20: BCCI demands removal of Denness from the third Test or alternatively his decision be kept in abeyance.
Sports Minister Uma Bharti expresses concern at the developments in South Africa.
Nov 21: The issue rocks Parliament and national debate ensues.
Nov 22: Indian and South African Cricket Boards take unprecedented decision of removing Denness for the third Test in defiance of the ICC.
ICC retaliates by declaring the third Test unofficial.
Nov 23: Sports Minister Uma Bharti terms punishments as "racial discrimination" but rules out government intervention.
ICC rules out suspending Indian and South African Boards.
Nov 24: Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee supports BCCI's handling of the situation.
Nov 25: ICC concedes umpires did not report against Tendulkar and Ganguly.
England Cricket Board comes out in support of ICC in its stand-off with Indian and South African Boards.
Nov 26: BCCI announces permanent boycott of Denness as match referee following its working committee meeting.
Nov 27: BCCI declares Virender Sehwag eligible for Mohali Test against England.
ICC gives 72-hour deadline to BCCI to make its stand clear on Sehwag's eligibility by Friday (Nov 30) noon.
Nov 28: BCCI rejects ICC deadline.ICC exonerates Tendulkar of ball tampering charges.
England threatens to pull out of its India tour if Sehwag is selected to play.
Direct telephonic contact established between BCCI President Jagmohan Dalmiya and ICC bosses, Malcolm Gray (President) and Malcolm Speed (Chief Executive Officer).
Nov 29: ICC President and Chief Executive suggest face to face meeting in Kuala Lumpur with Dalmiya to resolve the crisis.
Nov 30: The 12-day old crisis finally blows over following three days of intense telephonic negotiations between Dalmiya and the ICC top brass.
Comments
SHARE