I HOPE you will excuse me if I tiptoe stealthily round the subjects arising from the Test that vanished. One minute it was the third Test; the next it was "India's tour match in South Africa." A breathtaking moment when the only appropriate sound was the over-excited beating of various high-ranking hearts in India, South Africa and, loudest of all, in the corner of Lord's occupied by the International Cricket Council.
The game that survived Bodyline, Packer and Cronje was embroiled in a new crisis and, at the time of writing, none of us have any idea just how badly cricket may fare as a result. At worst there could be a split between the white nations and the Asians leaving the whole game in disarray.
India has had - whether you appreciate it or not - the most vigorous leadership of all the Test nations in the last ten years. They may lead the way. Perhaps it will be for the good of cricket. More likely it will be a disaster.
Hence my caution. We are clearly at the start of an unprecedented upheaval unless someone uses much-needed diplomacy. Who will that be? Perhaps I am too pessimistic but there was an noticeable absence of tact as this row developed.
Jagmohan Dalmiya, Gerald Majola, Lord MacLaurin, several Indian MPs and columnists without number have all said and written words they may regret. It is time for quiet reflection, for carefully chosen words, for men with good judgement. Hot heads need not apply.
So, instead of leaping to conclusions, let's answer one or two important questions. From 5,000 miles away it is sometimes easier to take a sensible view. I had the double advantage of sitting at the top of my self-built ivory tower while reading the endless e-mails that poured out of South Africa from official sources and a number of, admittedly bewildered, friends.
Did Sachin Tendulkar, the model pro, one of the greatest batsmen of all time, the epitome of sporting virtue, really attempt to lift the seam?
My view - based on the TV replays, but supported by some of those closer to the action - was that he did. Or appeared to, so that it is difficult to damn Mike Denness for giving him a suspended ban. At least one email from a prominent Indian journalist, giving his personal view not his public opinion, told me that he thought Sachin must be guilty. (But match referee Denness has since clarified to me that he penalised Tendulkar only for cleaning the ball without informing the umpires.)
Denness' accent brings me to my second point. Those Indian writers who thought that Denness was acting out the racist habits of the Raj should have remembered his birthplace.
Scots are as sure as many other nations that they have been victims of those they call the Sassenachs - or Southerners - and the rest call the English. Their history presents hundreds of examples of English treachery spanning 1,000 years. After ten years living or working regularly in Scotland I how it feel to be condemned simply for being English.
Was Denness right in every other decision? Again the emails suggest he was. By leaving Virender Sehwag out of the Centurion match India acknowledged the guilt of their unappealing appealer-in-chief. ICC say that as this match was not a Test Sehwag will have to miss the first Test against England as well. Plenty of opportunity for further trouble.
So if Denness made a wrong decision in some of the cases before him it is understandable and he certainly did not act from prejudice. Humans make errors and I suspect that was all he did.
In a dozen matches as referee he has fined Gary Kirsten for wearing a coloured bandana in a one-day match when white clothing was being used and the South African coach for not telling Kirsten to take off his new headgear. He punished Phil Simmons for appealing too aggressively, Brian Lara for having an advertising logo on his bat - when four overs had been bowled in 25 minutes, a bit of slow cricket that he ignored - and New Zealand's Danny Morrison for punching the wicket when his appeal was turned down.
Pettifogging? Nit-picking? School-marmish? A quiet word in the right ear might have been a better answer; but that is true of match refereeing in general.
Now it would be better if Denness quit before he causes more mayhem. His actions have put the first Test against England in danger; who know's what is on the horizon.
But all he made was an ordinary mortal's mistake; India and South Africa turned it into a crisis. They were wrong to defy ICC, although it is easy to see why they were so angry. Perhaps they should have waited but sport is run by men on the run.
Dalmiya rarely sits under a tree weighing form when he is confronted with a difficult question. He draws his broadsword and waves it wildly when others might say: "Hey, hang on guys, let's think this one through." Sometimes, as he showed when he was president of ICC, he is right to issue strong words and make quick judgments; sometimes he is wrong.
Since he became chairman of the Indian Board Dalmiya has shown plenty of high-speed action: Telling England they could not withdraw from their tour, threatening to cut down the number of Tests in England next summer and asking for Denness to be replaced.
That final decision is a strange one for a former president of ICC. Why he chose to go down that path may take some time to emerge.
It is also difficult to understand the United Board of South Africa's Ali Bacher, another man with an instant response for every problem. What on earth possessed his Board to undermine ICC by appointing a native South African as match referee once they had told Denness he was no longer wanted?
For the money, of course. The root of all evil.
Without a third Test there would have been an old movie on television screens instead of live cricket. Television executives would have begun to think that Greco-Roman wrestling, underwater darts or ballroom dancing might prove more reliable than this ungovernable sport.
Cricket authorities would have been without the easy buck that is provided by TV - and therefore by sponsors - counties would have been bankrupt in a week, the game would have floundered into the backwater it inhabited before the Packer era.
So the third Test at Centurion Park - oops, sorry, the final tour match - went on its dreary way, the couch potatoes, the gamblers and the TV moguls had their telecast, sponsors put over their message and, rightly or wrongly, the world was sane again. Or was it?
I think not. There are bound to be long-term consequences from this dreadful week when two nations defied the governing body they put in place, and cricketers talked as if every principle of fair play had suddenly gone walkabout.
So let's have sensible, restrained discussion. ICC should, as a first step, debate the need for an appeals system so that the match referee is not any longer judge and jury. That way madness lies.
Worst of all, just when ICC had begun to establish its authority, when their finances were straight and at last they could demand respect, they walked into the worst crisis in their history. Some of the responsibility lies in their own regulations. They called a Press conference, ordered Denness to attend and then told the waiting pack of, naturally, excited, reporters that he was not allowed to answer questions.
Now that is a British Colonial piece of nonsense, straight from the pages of a comic novel set in mid-19th century central Africa; a side issue, although one that ICC ought to address eventually. If a match referee is intelligent enough to make judgments on 22 players, four umpires and oversee all the arrangements for a Test, he ought to be bright enough to explain his actions afterwards.
For the moment there are greater issues at stake and ICC's officials must tread warily or organised cricket will fall apart.
Comments
SHARE