Incompetent Cricket Council

ICC stands for Incompetent Cricket Council

The popularity of a sport is directly proportional to the need to govern the rules and regulations of the game and good governance is very essential to prevent anarchy. Lawless growth is neither good for the game nor the players. ICC has failed to act incisively and decisively on many a occasion and in fact, continues to drag its feet on important issues. The match-fixing scandals and the chucking controversies have been allowed to grow into monsters and they keep rearing their ugly head every now and then, like the proverbial Medusa. Quick decisive action would have killed and buried these monsters. Now, even boys playing in the beach (as shown in NDTV) mock ICC - “if Shoaib can chuck why can’t I”. This situation arose as rules were tinkered with to allow Akthar to chuck because Brett Lee does and no umpire dare ‘call’ an Australian.

It was poor Murali who bore the brunt of Hair’s insult initially. The whole world watched when Ranatunga ordered Murali to bowl leg breaks and still Hair called foul, even though anyone who has played a decent amount of cricket will know that it is impossible to ‘throw’ a leg break. Was Hair pulled up? No. It took an ‘Oval Fiasco’ to see the end of Hair. In the meanwhile we had several ‘hair raising’ controversies. How typical of ICC!

Nowhere the double standards of ICC is blatantly visible more than how the governing body keeps up the Code of Conduct and punishes those players guilty of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’. Could any Asian player have got away with “dirt in the pocket” as did Atherton. Can any Indian forget Mike Denness in South Africa? Mcgrath can express his wrath any number of times or Nel can scowl at the batsman but the match referee dare not pull them up. After all he wants to be in the good books of ICC. Such inaction encourages young punks but little do they know that they need plenty of bleach cream to escape punishment. Sreesanth found out the hard way. The point is, if Mcgrath had been sent to sin bin a la Rugby, would Sreesanth dare do it?

We have not heard the end of match-fixing. Another ugly problem not nipped in the bud. Some big fish were caught but were allowed to get away by the respective country’s Board of Control and ICC turned a blind eye. The result- even small fries are boldly parleying with bookies. If Mark Waugh can give “information” and get away with it, can you punish Samuels?

Cricket is the only sport played at the international level wherein the size of the ground is not determined by a regulation. To my mind, this is really appalling and is the ‘best’ example of the governing body’s incompetency. The ground authorities are free to choose the size and shape according to their whims and fancies. It is not uncommon to see the boundary ropes forming a tighter circle between two matches. The argument that as long as the playing conditions are same for both the teams, it should be acceptable does not hold much water. Such variations do give undue advantage to the home player who is used to the conditions, when he is batting or setting the field. A six in Adelaide will not get even two runs in Melbourne. Imagine this happening in football or hockey or tennis! What will happen to Beckham’s corner kicks? Or Federer’s booming cross-court forehand? Distances to boundaries on either side of the pitch sometimes differ because there could be more than one pitch in the middle. This should be the maximum variation permissible. Even this vagary should be allowed only when more than one match is scheduled in the same ground.

ICC’s reluctance to use technology is a clear indication that the interest of the game is the last thing on its minds. Tennis has accepted ‘hawk-eye’ but that technology is not good enough for ICC. The two ‘wrong challenges’ given to a player is a brilliant move and has surely enriched the game as it greatly reduces human error. Time delay because of frequent challenges is often offered as the excuse for not expanding the use of technology. It’s really comical that several minutes and half a dozen replays will be used to decide whether the fielder was in contact with the ropes and the ball (even when it is very clear that the ball was feet away from the ropes) but they won’t wait a minute to decide whether a batsman is out or not. Which is more important- one run saved or conceded, time delay or correct decisions? A batsman can challenge a wrong decision and if he is really out, then he cannot challenge a second time. Likewise a fielding captain should be allowed two ‘incorrect’ challenges to reduce umpire errors. Who is bigger, ICC or the game. For the moment the answer seems to be ICC.