BCCI show contempt for ICC

How far do we want this row to go? India have already got their own way over the dispatch of Steve Bucknor as umpire, now the BCCI, the Indian board, says that the tour of Australia will go ahead - but only if the ICC's appointed commissioner finds in Harbhajan's favour. This is outrageous. If the ICC has any spine, it should demand a statement from the BCCI that it will abide by any decision, otherwise Malcolm Speed, the chief executive, Mike Procter, who handed down the original ban, and ideally the whole board should resign in protest. You simply cannot run a governing body if one of the constituent bodies has such contempt for its decisions.

For that matter, if the commissioner does then back Procter and enforce the ban (or even extend it by a Test as he is allowed) India might choose to cancel the tour. At which point, if they were men of dignity and honour, the ICC board chairmen should declare India as ostracised and cancel all future tours of and by India. The 2011 World Cup itself could be in doubt. I have no wish to stir up panic, but India's bureaucrats have to start acting like statesmen rather than demanding special treatment. I stress that I am not saying that the commissioner should back Procter (it still appears there was little evidence for the referee's decision) but that he should be allowed to make up his mind free from threats.

Speed has said that the appeals commissioner will be appointed by Wednesday. There is a 17-man panel that he will be chosen from, although Richie Benaud and Goolam Vahanvati will not be considered as they represent Australia and India. Choosing the man to tread this tightrope will be intriguing; the ICC will not want to be seen to be selecting a man who is perceived as biased either way. Michael Beloff QC and Sir Oliver Popplewell are the English representatives, but would India accept an Englishman? Would Australia accept an Asian? Justice John Hansen from New Zealand or Justice Albie Sachs from South Africa would be possible alternatives.

The ICC must be careful about the timing of the appointment. Under Clause H11 of their Code of Conduct (a riveting read, I promise you) it says that the commissioner must hear the evidence and reach a decision within seven days of being appointed. If that period overlaps with the Perth Test, then Harbhajan would be free to play and thus the inquiry would gain some extra days. So that means that India will be hoping that the appointment is made after 11.30am (Perth time) tomorrow.

Comments

[John, Oxford]

It is nonsense to say that the Indians don't respect their hosts (Mr McGuiness). Clearly, for you anyone who complains about a clear case of injustice is at fault, since we should all just walk away when treated badly. Turn the other cheek, right? Well, some of us are not Christians.

[John, Oxford]

"England being a poodle of the US" - what racist nonsense.

Patrick - blindly believing everything the the BBC says is just hilarious ...

Sunil, and especially Dubby - masterful analysis. Wish I could have said it myself.

[sharma gull]

MR pitrock kodd,

you and rest of ausries are all racism. you should be ashemed of slef for clearly biased comments, you hate bcci and india. you should respect GRETEST TEAM IN WORLD owners of GREAT BATSMAN SOCHIN TUNDOOLKARS

MR KADD hanging yours head in shame!

[Mrs E.V Edwards]

Hello Sunjay Dear,

Thank you for telling me about Tetley.

It is a wonderful brew, regardless of ownership.

I have often considered taking up Mr Fernando's offer of 'Do try it". I think I will take your advice and start imbibing the famous tea from The Noble Island.

'A change is as good as a holiday', as my late husband used to say, when he was latex shopping.

Nice to see you keeping your sense of humour, despite the awful degradation at the hands of those beastly Australians. Keep fighting the good fight dear. Bless your heart.

Regards to you to Patrick my boy.

[Sunjay Singh]

Mrs E.V Edwards pity Tetley is not a neutral tea any more. It belongs to TATA TEA, an Indian tea company, would Dilmah do, again from a former colony, Ceylon that is how you would remember it, Sri Lanka to us.

Now regarding throwing or banning India , is just not possible , you see Patrick. It pays for you, the English players, hell the Aussies also milk us poor sods of our money.

So right now till the next decade you will have to bear with us. Unless some how English teach the Americans to play, but that happening is quite a uphill task. Plus England being a poodle of the US , that is also looks impossible.

Being arrogant , yes just learnt it from the Aussies. If you are arrogant and pushy every one respects you, otherwise you are a push over. seen it happen so many times in the cricket fraternity.

[Dubby]

Let's look at the sequence of events.

1. Symonds tells Harbhajan what he thinks of him for tapping Brett Lee's backside. Brett Lee had no complaint but Symonds had to stir the pot.
2. HS replies to AS.
3. At the time, Sachin and HS had put together a record 8th wicket stand, with HS making his third test 50 and were overhauling the Aussies. In whose interest was it to start a confrontation?
4. Symonds complains to Ponting that HS called him a monkey. RP complains to the umpires who report the incident to the Match Referee.
5. HS denies having called AS a monkey.
6. Sachin says he heard the argument and HS did not use the word monkey. Hayden and Clarke say they heard `HS use the M word.
7. The umpires state they did not hear anything.
8. Visuals shown on TV show Sachin Tendulkar intervening to separate HS and As and Umpire Benson speaking to HS. Not clear if this was before or after the complaint. No Australian player is seen in the same frame as HS and AS.
9. The stump mikes do not pick up any racial slur.
10. The Match Referee holds a hearing and determines that HS utters a racial slur on the basis of testimony of a) The person who started the argument (who has also been condemned for his actions while batting) and b) 2 of his team mates (one of whom has been seen bending the rules twice in the same match). He determines that HS is lying (probably because the Australians insist he has a past record) and so to is ST, an individual universally admired not merely for his cricketing skills but for his character. Apparently three individuals who have demonstrated in this match their respect of the "spirit of the game" are deemed to be more trustworthy witnesses than one of the finest players to grace repeat grace the game of cricket.

The dispute is no longer about whether HS used the M word or not. It is that in finding him guilty, Mike Procter has called Sachin a liar.

There are many in India who are critical of Sachin's performance, but not one has ever questioned his integrity or commitment to the game. The same is also true of Kumble and Dravid. If India lost the Test (umpiring errors apart) because they were soft, I as an Indian fan have no regrets. I would much rather have players who play the game with dignity rather than trying to bend the rules. It would be disaster if our young cricketers (Sreesanth take note) tried to emulate the Australian boors rather than their own elder role models.

One would expect the Appeals Commissioner (a judge) to give due weightage to the evidence or lack thereof and probably acquit HS. If not the entire team stands condemned and should come home immediately, as I am sure the Australians would not wish to play with a racist oufit.

Some questions -

1. If the Appeals Commissioner fails to uphold the verdict, can we expect Procter to resign from the panel of match referees? He has already shown himself incapable of defusing a crisis once. This would be the second offence.
2. Will Ponting and Symonds be charged with bringing the game into disrepute?
3. Will Ponting and Clarke be charged for claiming illegitimate catches? Or is it one law for Rashid Latif and another one for Ricky Ponting? Who was the Match referee who banned Latif - goodness gracious , Mike Procter.

[James]

I think Homer's right, Patrick. The BCCI have certainly implied that India will go home if Harbhajan isn't cleared, but they haven't said it explicitly.

This all reminds me of Ranatunga's farcical hearing for pulling the players off the field during a Sri Lanka-Australia game. That debacle convinced the ICC to tighten up the framework of agreements that countries make before tours about entering, respecting and abiding by the hearing process. But what now? Solemn agreements not to ride roughshod over agreements?

[John Jorrocks]

Shouldn't Ponting have had a word with Tendulkar and Kumble instead of rushing off to complain to the Head? Given the Australians' record, you must admit that this is pretty rough justice for the Indians.
Is there a clause in the ICC's regulations to ensure that the expressions "playing hard" and "the Australian way" will never again sully the cricketing lexicon?

[Mrs E.V Edwards]

Hello Patrick Dear,

My, aren't you busy?

And here you were thinking it was Rugger season!

You've certainly made many new Indian friends thanks to all this nonsense down in the colony. They do like an argument don't they - bless them. I must admit, I went through an awfully feisty time with Mr Edwards during the 'change'.

I wouldn't have blamed him if he burnt my effigy down at the club every night for a couple of years there!

I think all those excitable chaps from both India and Australia, should sit down to a nice strong cuppa together and a calm chat. A 'nuetral' tea of course - not Bushell's or Chai Masala. Perhaps Tetley's. And I think their Mum's should be there to give a good clip around the ear holes.

Anyway, I am sure after all the unpleasantness is finished, you can go back to your leisurely flask of Jamieson's under your desk and your 4 posts a day, Patrick.

Try to eat some vegetables.

Goodbye Dear.

[Peter McGuinness]

I think it's best that this tour is concluded forthwith.

Surely, cricket - or any sport - is only worthwhile if the rivalry is a source of enjoyment, and something which strengthens the bonds of camaraderie between nations. The Ashes is an example.

This poisonous tour has done the complete opposite. It is clear that the sporting sensibilities and rationales of each country are utterly irreconcilable.

I am stunned at the amount of sheer hatred being directed at average Australians by our Indian friends over a cricketing incident. It is simply not worth it, no matter how much people on either side love the game of cricket, or who is 'right'.

We should agree to disagree and end the matter without going through the painful charade of two more test matches.

Where to go from there - who knows?

But for the time being I suggest that the whole 'Will we stay/Won't we stay' debate, be taken from our guest's hands, by inviting them to leave. They do not respect their hosts (I am not disputing the reasons, but this is clearly a fact), neither do their fans. It is unpleasant for them to play against Australia and for them to be in Australia. Why force them to stay?

What's the point?

Continuing this rubbish is doing more harm than good. It's possible that both sides will learn more from an abandoned tour, than they will from perpetuating this ugliness.

If the ICC and the Boards really believe that this matter will all be forgotten thanks to the appeasement of India, and the continuation of the tour because of CA's television commitments, they are crazy. No one on either side will take results in the remaining Tests seriously under current circumstances.

Things have be said and actions have been taken that cannot be undone. Each country has had a good look into each other's national character and not liked what they've seen. Under the circumstances, isn't playing sport against each other, when there's no remaining prospect of good spirit, just a tad disingenuous?

If cricket is not a joy, if it is not a 'healer', then what is it?

[sunil mehta]

The fact of the matter is that most Indians, when they think through this whole Harbhajan matter, realize that if indeed he did use that language against Symonds, it was wrong and the punishment banning him is just. The problem is that there is no proof he said it - only the word of the Australian players against the word of the Indian players. There's the rub.

Procter, who is not a judge, concluded on the basis of Aussie claims that the Indian witness (Tendulkar) either was lying or not credible for whatever reason. As expected, this rankles the Indians justifiably. In all our countries, one is innocent until proven guilty. This is a very serious allegation as it affects a player's life, reputation and livelihood. Therefore, it should receive serious attention from a competent body or person. The Indian contention is that under those circumstances Harbhajan will likely be found innocent as no credible proof exists he made those comments. In fact, the process was instigated by Symonds after Harbhajan tapped Lee on the back, something Lee did not object or respond to.

However, if after a competent evaluation Harbhajan is found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, he should be duly punished and it would behoove the BCCI and Indian fans to abide by that ruling. Otherwise they are no better than any other scofflaws. Justice has to be blind but unfortunately for many of the worlds colored people, this has not been the case.

[v]

What do you expect after the aftermath of what has happened? BCCI coming out and saying that the tour will go on, what come be in Perth and Adelaide?

Anyway both sides are at fault for letting it go this far and I'm afraid that Mike Proctor has set a precedent of sorts, will be interesting to see how he deals with Hogg.

[Patrick Kidd]

Ps: I'm delighted so many new readers have discovered this blog and left comments. I hope plenty of you keep on coming back in the summer and letting me know what you think of such delights as Essex v Worcestershire.

[Patrick Kidd]

Thanks for your views. I hope I am wrong, but surely "the tour will continue for the present" contains an implicit threat that they may pull out again? I just wish the BCCI could say it will accept the judge's decision, whatever it is.

Homer, and others, I agree Australia have not covered themselves with glory over this and have been pretty pig-headed themselves, but they are not threatening to deprive cricket-lovers of two Tests. Also, they have not suggested that they will refuse to play if Harbhajan is vindicated. As for punishments to Ponting and Symonds in that event, well I suppose it is quite a serious crime to allege someone is a racist but all they did was ask for it to be examined by the referee, which they have every right to do.

Oh well. Does anyone else just want to get back to watching some cricket?

[Homer]

Patrick,

How does anything in that statement translate to - either rule in our favor or else?

An Indian player has been banned for racism. And that is no small matter. If the expectation is that the BCCI would come up with a statement that they are perfectly okay with the decision ( and the manner in which the decision was arrived at), thats wishful thinking.

And as regards the Harbhajan decision and its aftermath, no bans for Ponting and Symonds for making insinuations and indulging in character assassination? And should Mr Proctor be let go scot free?

I mean, after all, if India should be banned from all competitive cricket if it pulls out of the tour, surely you must have thought of something comunserate if the ruling goes the other way, no?

[v]

Patrick ol mate,
It might be poor drafting on the part of BCCI or shoddy journalism on the part of BBC.

Just for a clarification from cricinfo
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329842.html
"took note of all relevant circumstances and developments and decided that Indian team tour to Australia should continue for the present." The board, it added, will "review the tour and all other developments continuously."
Another website which corroborates the cricinfo version of things
http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/08onkar.htm

I do agree that those running the BCCI are pigheaded but i am sure they are not that shortsighted as well to really to have gone along those lines.

[Homer]

And if you are really into outrageous, cast your eye on this

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329742.html

"I believe that one group was telling the truth". Indeed!

[Patrick Kidd]

Hi Homer,

The BBC's opening paragraph on this story sets out the line.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7174992.stm

The BBC contain the following quote from the BCCI (which is where I drew my line from): "This is only an interim arrangement. The BCCI is of the categorical view that the matter will have to be finally resolved and the unfair allegation against an Indian player be set aside or withdrawn. The BCCI will review the tour and all other developments continuously."

I would not have any problem with the ICC commissioner ruling in favour of Harbhajan. As I say, I am not convinced there is much evidence for Procter's decision (or not that has been made public). If Harbhajan is cleared, Australians should shut up whinging about it and get back to playing cricket, which is what most of us cricket-lovers actually want. And Indians should not gloat but leave it there.

[Homer]

I have read the article in the Times. And on Cricinfo.

Pray tell me where has the BCCI stated that the future of the tour is hinged on a favorable outcome to the Harbhajan hearing?

Vitriol is fine, but on what basis?

And I would love to know your thoughts on what you expect should happen if the ICC appointed commissioner rules in favor of Harbhajan (could happen, you know).