A simple issue of suspected, or rather alleged, ball-tampering incident, that is yet to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, has gone so far as to stir a hornet’s nest. The fall out quite clearly appears to divide the cricketing world right down the middle.
There are now many controversies mushrooming from just one. As arguments continue to come forth and back, one way or the other, the larger question that emerges is: Who exactly is running the International Cricket Council ?
The first faux pas the ICC committed was to have the whole issue handed over to the chief referee of the ICC sitting thousands of miles away from “the scene of the crime.” His non-availability led to the postponement of a judgment on the issue, as also the fate of Pakistani captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq. According to the existing code of conduct, it is the match referee on the spot who decides on such matters. Actually, as the drama unfolded on the television for us to see, minute by minute, the match referee Mike Proctor was nowhere in the picture.
If we refer to earlier incidents of this nature, some years ago, Sachin Tendulkar was stood down for two matches, for ball tampering, by the match referee Mike Denness, present on the ground in South Africa...
But a more bizarre situation that devolved on the sidelines in this case was that a secret deal was apparently struck between the ICC and the controversial umpire Darrell Hair. The Australian umpire, now settled in England, had demanded US $ 500,000 as “terminal benefits” to quit the elite panel of umpires. This offer could not have been made by him without the promptings of a representative of the ICC.
This secret deal was exposed by the ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed, by leaking an e-mail sent by Hair. In an interview to BBC radio, at almost the same time, Speed had said, in so many words, that Hair’s day of umpiring were as good as over. On what grounds, he did not mention.
Now, here’s the big question: How can Malcolm Speed, a paid staff of the ICC, take all important decisions all by himself? So far the chairman of the ICC committee on cricket, Sunil Gavaskar, has neither spoken on the issue nor has he been consulted. More importantly, any such contemplated pay-off cannot be made without the approval of the full ICC board, consisting of representatives of the ten Test-playing nations. That is why, we are forced to ask the pertinent question again: Who controls the ICC? As things stand, a handful of highly-paid staff members, only from Australia and England, decide on all matters. Sometime back, Malcolm Speed, who lives on the largesse drawn from ICC’s enormous funds, had “warned” India and Pakistan of attempting to unite the Asian bloc against England and Australia.
Jagmohan Dalmiya, the then BCCI president, had to ask him to mind his own business, as he was no more than a glorified clerk of the ICC.
Again, the media accreditation for the upcoming Champions’ Trophy in India in October, is handled by four paid staff members, three from England and one from Australia. Even though all the venues are in India and the facilities are being provided by the match-staging centers, no one from India has any say in the matter. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on these worthies to make frequent trips to India on the slightest pretext.
How the ICC selects its staff is a different matter altogether. That can be discussed at a later date.
Let us first await the outcome of the present imbroglio.
