The ICC's handling of the Second Test in Sydney was wide of the mark

Bat and ball / Paul Moon / 15 January 2008 / 3 Comments

Pablo Luna - Moonlighting for Betfair - considers whether it's time for umpire Steve Bucknor to call it a day after the Australia v India debacle...

I think cricket and the ICC has scored a second own goal in surrendering to threats from India to withdraw from matches in the current series with Australia. The day the ICC - which is supposed to be the custodian of the game - is undermined, you set dangerous precedents and repercussions inevitably follow! And I point my wagging finger at the ineffective and disingenuous ICC, the international governing authority.

For nations to pick and choose who they think should umpire their games is wrong. I despise and abhor blackmail but Daryl Hair and Steve Bucknor have now been removed. Where will it all end? I would have charged India, who have become the de facto power in the game, for bringing the game into disrepute.

Looking at the last Test Match between Australia and India, Steve Bucknor had a mare! He should already have been removed from the elite panel of umpires. I agree with Dickie Bird that he has 'gone on too long' - at 62 he is getting too old and is on the down-slope of his abilities. Though I remember Dickie at the end of his career and he wasn't great himself by that stage.

Secondly, much has been said about sportsmanship and racism in the last week and I can confirm that 98.7% of it is complete and utter rubbish! It is either sour grapes, deflection from ones own failings or kettles calling each other black.

Paragraph 3.3 of the ICC's code of conduct refers to players "using language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the basis of that person's race, religion, gender, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin". This code has been broken ever since I watched and played cricket, denial is delusional.

Do you think the West Indies in the sixties did not insult, humiliate, intimidate and threaten? They did! You can add injure to that list. Sir Vivian Richards threatened fistfights outside of the ground on more than one occasion. Read the autobiographies, it was the most mentally and physically dangerous time ever! So what's new? High expectations, pressure, failure and money is what's new.

Despite the explanation I do have a criticism of the humble Bucknor and others in that they have the rules but do not apply them. There is evidence of cowardice and domesticity. There is evidence of living in the comfort zone on a gravy train. I have not witnessed strength and fortitude with control and when they ignore the more serious breaches of conduct it is denial, hence a dereliction. Sacking them is the option.

I have absolutely no problem with banter out in the middle. We are talking about a physical 21st century sport and not an over 65s knitting class. It would be so simple to deal with the most obnoxious remarks, simply instruct umpires to report them as per Darren Lehmann. Suspension of offenders would end malicious sledging overnight.

An area that should be revisited is technology. Where it is available its use should be mandatory, that alone would take pressure off umpires. There is a big argument for the third umpire to be involved in more than just the line decisions and assessing whether a catch had been taken legally, I am not sure, what do you think? More former international players should be lured into umpiring and increasing the elite group from ten men would help as they are being stretched given the volume of cricket these days.

The Australians [1.41] will be on their best behaviour in Perth for the 3rd Test but my guess is that India [9.6] are beaten, I expect India to try too hard and falter with the overly high expectation. Besides, the fast pitch will find them out. The draw is [5.2] with prices from Betfair. I do look forward in anticipation.

My favourite umpires are Simon Taufel, ranked 2nd for accuracy and Aleem Dar, who is unobtrusive and improving. Daryl Hair is exactly what I look for in a number one umpire and when it comes to getting decisions right there is no one better, he is still ranked 1st regarding accuracy. I am concerned that Mark Benson is the only English umpire on the Elite Panel List. Does anyone know why?

Comments (3)

1. Nigel Thompson | 15 January 2008

   There is only one thing that I have to say about this and that Ponting is a 'small Weasly little rat'...
   I wish the Indians all the very best in the next test match and hope that the Australians dont mess it up once again...

2. smale25 | 15 January 2008

   A fair resolution: 1) declare the second test between Australia and India played at Sydney during January 2 - 6, 2008 to be NULL and VOID on legal grounds, 2) cancel the ban on Harbhajan Singh, but punish him along with Andrew Symonds, Michael Clark and Brad Hogg for conduct unbecoming of players of test cricket, and of representatives of their countries.

   Explanation: The umpires officiating for the test match (Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor) and the captains (Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble) of the two playing sides have some legal grounds to enter into an oral agreement about umpiring decisions that AUGMENTS the ICC rules which provide for the umpires' current decision making capabilities. However, under no circumstances do they have the jurisdiction to enter into an agreement between themselves that SUBVERTS the current rules of the ICC. To make this point clear, consider the incident involving Saurav Ganguly's dismissal in his second innings. Ganguly (a left-hander) had nicked a ball, and the ball was supposedly caught by Michael Clarke in the slip position. Under normal circumstances, if the fielder (Clarke) was not in the direct line of sight of the umpire (Benson), or if the umpire was not sure if the catch was clean, he would consult the square leg umpire (Bucknor). If the square leg umpire also could not deliver a clear verdict, then the third umpire, who has the benefit of the TV replays, is referred to. This is the procedure for determining the dismissal of the batsman, as provided by the rules of the ICC.

   Now, there is definitely the possibility that, when the third umpire is called in, the TV replays also could not determine the verdict clearly. This might be the case, for example, if the TV cameras could not provide the complete information on the position and the movement of the ball and the fielder during the catch. Currently, in international cricket, the batsman is usually given the benefit of the doubt, if the third umpire also could not reach a clear verdict. In this second test match, if the captains and the umpires, in this particular situation (where the third umpire is inconclusive), had agreed that to resolve the ambiguity in a more transparent manner, they would take the word of the fielder who caught the ball (to be conveyed to the umpires through the captain of the fielding side), then they are on a relatively strong legal ground. However, in the case of Ganguly's dismissal, the umpire, Benson, decided to directly ask the captain of the fielding side, rather than first ask the square leg umpire and the third umpire. Thus his action amounts to subverting the decision process provided by the ICC rules. At this point, perhaps it is worth interjecting that there is no need to ascribe any sinister motives to the umpire. He must have simply gone by the earlier 'Gentlemen's agreement', and possibly, he might not have understood the legal implications of his actions. Also, it is worth explaining the seriousness of this issue with an example here. In a game of cricket, if the umpires and the captains, on their own, could make agreements that subvert the ICC rules, then there is no guarantee that what is played at the venue is cricket. Just imagine, years later, the record books would specify a certain result, but what happened on the field, might be a game of gilli-danda, or football, for that matter! Thus it is very important to understand that the umpires and captains can only augment the decision making procedure provided by the ICC rules for the purpose of transparency, but they can never subvert the ICC rules. If they do, it could not be considered a game of cricket. Thus, the second test match between Australia and India played at Sydney, Australia during January 2 - 6, 2008 is NULL and VOID on legal grounds.

   Note that this legal implication is also a happy consequence for all fair-minded followers of the game. Australia would still have the chance to go for their 17 straight test wins if they won the remaining test matches at Perth and Adelaide. Moreover, this would nullify the accusations of cheating that the Australian team has been hearing from many of their own countrymen. On the other hand, for India, they could still win the Border-Gavaskar trophy if they won the remaining two tests. Moreover, for Cricket Australia, BCCI, ICC and the media, the fact that the series is still undecided and kicking, would mean more revenue, and hence a welcome resolution. Thus this is the best outcomes for all parties involved.

   (The grounds for my conclusions on the Harbhajan Singh ban, and punishing Singh, Symonds, Clarke, and Hogg will be explained later, in a subsequent article).
   

3. Paul | 16 January 2008

   Wow, that is a comment!