No fair play and justice in cricket anymore

A number of popular connotations remain attached with the game of cricket since its inception on the international scene. At the very start it was called a ‘royal game’ or the ‘princely game of cricket’ because it was played by the elite of a city, town or a country. The ‘lords’ comprising the team took the field in fancy flannels and silken shirts. With unprecedented expansion and popularity, the game has travelled down from the elite to the street urchins. With the monopoly of two major countries England and Australia on the game having ended and cricket gained international perspective, such a transformation is acceptable. The second quotation that ‘cricket is the game of glorious uncertainties’ is based on the characteristics of the game. It is a fact that one cannot predict the result till the match ends and many matches end on the last ball. Two such matches involving the Pakistan team have already become a part of our cricket history. Javed Miandad’s famous six on the last ball of a match against India at Sharjah that we won and Misbahul Haq’s inability to score two runs on the last four balls in the final of the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup that we lost will remain alive in the memory of the cricket lovers. Having proved its truth the quotation is meant to stay for all times to come. One, however, feels sorry to note that the third and the most important quotation that ‘cricket is the game of justice and fair play’ is fading out with the passage of time. It is happening on account of the gradual degeneration of character qualities of the players, umpires and all others involved in the game. The conflicts and controversies during matches and tournaments and disputes of various nature have become an order of the day. The umpiring crisis during the Sydney Test between Australia and India became so acute that the series was almost on the brink of cancellation. The adjudication by the ICC elite panel umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson was downright poor or one may say ‘partial’. Commenting on India’s defeat at the hands of the umpires, India’s manager Chetan Chauhan said: “A lot of decisions have gone against us. Had 50 percent of the decisions been received in our favour, the result would have been different.” I absolutely agree with Chetan Chauhan. I watched the last day’s proceedings ball to ball on the TV. India were well on their way to draw the match when the catastrophe occurred mainly on account of the incompetence of the umpires. The streak of wrong and partial decisions demoralized the Indian batting line thereby ruining their chances of saving the defeat. Australia may be the top cricket team of the world but one thing is sure that they lack the sportsman spirit. A wicketkeeper is the best judge of every ball that he collects, whether edged or not. Adam Gilchrist is not only a senior player but also one of the top wicketkeepers in the game. He should have at least shown the sportsman spirit of telling the umpire that the batsman did not snick the ball. Same was for Andrew Symonds who picked the ball from the ground and claimed the catch. Going back by two decades one finds that the concept of ‘neutral umpires’ emerged for the reason that the local umpires supervising the international matches were not only ‘considered’ incompetent but also partial in helping the home side to win. As per the new system the ICC’s elite panel comprises of the umpires nominated by various cricket boards. They are supposed to be the best among those who supervised matches at home. The only change that the system of neutral umpires has brought is that while deputing them to supervise matches it is ensured that they are alien to the competing teams. Though the factor of advantage to home team is eliminated, providing advantage to the ‘favourite team’ cannot be ruled out. In the case of Sydney Test, the factors of both incompetence and partiality were pretty evident. All said and done, it was the massacre of the spirit of justice and fair play which is the key-stone of the glorious game of cricket. The Indians were inflicted with another serious blow when spinner Harbhajan Singh was banned for three Test matches by match referee Mike Proctor for racism. It was alleged that Harbhajan had an argument with Symonds during which he called him a ‘monkey.’ While Harbhajan denied the charge, the referee awarded the punishment considering the remarks as an offence against Symonds ‘race or ethnic origin’. Perturbed by the storm engulfing them from all directions, the Indian team, not only protested but also threatened to call off the tour. The injustice meted out to the Indian team was badly resented by the cricket lovers back home. In a poll conducted by a leading newspaper, nine out of ten Indians pleaded the team to abandon the tour and return home. In a surprising change of attitude the Indian protest was reckoned by the ICC which axed umpire Steve Bucknor and replaced him with Billy Bowden. A High Court judge from New Zealand who happens to be a member of the ICC code of conduct commission was also appointed to hear Harbhajan Singh’s appeal. To the Indian team’s delight, his punishment will remain suspended till completion of the hearing. Finding the decisions favourable, India have decided to continue the tour. It is heartening that instead of making it a prestige point the ICC has settled the issue amicably which is not only good for cricket but also for the mutual relationship between the cricket-playing countries.