It is grotesquely disproportionate to the ugliness that surfaced at the SCG. Batsmen, bowlers and fielders, and notably the umpires themselves made their respective contributions to this collective ugliness. But what of the ICC, the governing body whose role presumably is to discourage and unintentionally or otherwise, promote crisis of this kind?
Shortly before this crisis erupted Yuvraj Singh was caught behind by Stuart Clark but stood his ground, with shock and bewilderment written all over his face. In a decision that was widely appreciated the match referee Mike Procter ruled that short-lived trauma rather than dissent explained his reluctance to walk. Nothing was said at the time by anyone from the ICC. Yet in the context of umpiring bungles and the Harbhajan affair that subsequently followed the ICC chief Malcom Speed thought it appropriate publicly to criticise Procter for letting Yuvraj off and the match referee also thought it appropriate to apologise. Procter’s state of mind can be easily imagined, having been reprimanded for leniency.
Travesty of justice
There is no reason to question Procter’s personal integrity. But the Yuvraj event strengthened his determination to do what he thought was right, to apply the rules as he conceived them to be, and to “discipline” those accused of breaking them. Psychologically he was in no state to invite another reprimand from Mr Malcolm Speed.
So, despite the overwhelming evidence which, at the very least, called for doubt and preliminary inquiry, a charge was slapped on Harbhajan on the grounds that, as a report has it, “he (Procter) was satisfied by the version given by Hayden and Clarke” neither of whom had clearly heard what passed between Symonds and Harbhajan. The result was a travesty of justice that must be unique in the history of international cricket.
Then we have the “gentlemen’s agreement” between Kumble and Ponting mediated in the presence of umpire Benson. It called for any doubt on the field to be referred to the captain of the fielder involved and that his word would be final. Kumble no doubt accepted this one to one understanding as informal, sportingly and mutually sanctioned in the spirit of the game. The fallout was that when Clarke was caught by Dravid, Benson appealed not to the third umpire but to Ponting whose decision was what it was expected to be. Has a private arrangement the status of an official ICC decree?
Error committed in good faith
Like all activities conducted by people thought to be civilised, cricket, as it evolved from the village level to the stadia of today, acquired a number of conventions. They were usually unspoken, never formally acknowledged, and recognised as a mutually binding code of conduct. A rule can be changed without affecting the core things that define the game. But tamper with a convention and cricket becomes what, under Australian auspices, it now threatens to be. One convention with an unmistakable English hallmark as it used to be is based on the realistic assumption that everyone is liable to make mistakes - players, sports officials and umpires. Erring batsmen and bowlers are penalised under the rules by dismissals or black marks against their careers. But umpires were given the privilege of being assessed by convention rather than by rules. Their decisions, right or wrong, are deemed to be final except instances of referral to the third umpire or referee; and by extension their mistakes are accepted by common consent as human error committed in good faith.
This is the background against which Bucknor’s not out decision for Symonds must be seen. It was a blatant violation of a convention, never mind Symond’s admission that he was out or that he “had a crack” at Harbhajan which precipitated the “monkey” controversy. The neutrality of neutral umpires is no insurance against conscious or unconscious bias. So why are the Australian players seemingly in the grip of a complex that has shaken the cricketing world?
Attitude problem of ICC
Talent and the success it brings, it has now been confirmed, do not ensure acclaim and respect despite the synthetic smiles of Aussie “mateyness”. Perhaps they are cricketening fundamentalists, fanatically devoted to winning and allowing victory to provide an outlet for arrogance, boorishness and devious behaviour. Yet it isn’t just defeat that they place beyond the pale. Even a challenge of the sort India offered was seen as an impertinence and unfortunately, in the present case, their determination to teach India a lesson was shared by some in the ICC.
How otherwise to explain the pompous declaration by the governing body that member boards have no right to insist on the appointment or rejection of an umpire? The ICC does not exist in a vacuum. It needs the support and the cooperation of its member boards. It has, as Greg Chappell might say, an attitude problem.
Arguably the Aussie players are suffering from a sense of being under siege as the West as a whole also is. The way the entire West has in varying degrees rallied to America’s cause has parallels in Australian matches against non-white teams. There is unease and uncertainty at challenges they never expected. Hence the backlash. Steve Waugh’s theory that a misunderstood Australian “culture” is at fault is as irrelevant as the question whether “monkey or “bastard” is the more objectionable. As Dravid walked off after a monstrous dismissal he laughed derisively and many of us laughed with him.
