No winners in stand-off

The clock is ticking down towards a confrontation within the game and a resolution to the match referee crisis has to take place soon or the farce perpetuated in Centurion will continue into another series.

It is difficult to know exactly where this controversy is heading and what impact it will ultimately have on world cricket -- Jagmohan Dalmiya seems to have backed away from subversive comments and ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed has outlined the body’s position towards the problem -- but it is still paramount that, along with a swift resolution, the true objectives are kept in mind.

Those objectives should be an open and honest discussion of the real or perceived bias against India and other Asian teams, why it is so strongly felt, and what can be done about it. After all, that was the real cause for India refusing to play under Denness which then led to what was to be the third Test being declared unofficial.

At present, the official face of the conflict seems to revolve around the effect -- the international match between South Africa and India being sanctioned as a Test, and whether or not it counts towards Sehwag’s suspension -- rather than the cause. While that is important, it is still a secondary issue.

Until there is official acknowledgement of India’s reasons for protesting against Denness, and until the BCCI enunciates them, the dispute will only go into remission. If that happens, the ill feeling will be kept just below the surface, and it will be a question of whether it can remain there until next April when the elite panel of umpires and referees is instituted. That should entail a review of the performances of match referees which leads to greater accountability, and a uniform appeals process for players punished.

The present lack of a right to appeal is clearly mistaken, for it presumes a match referee cannot make a mistake. Even if he does make a mistake, it is presumed that it is one of a small enough proportion that it will be acceptable. It does not take into account the possibility of a referee enforcing sentences so hypocritical as to be totally unacceptable to one team. Why the member nations did not foresee the eventuality of the need for appeal, and not already agreed to recourse to do so, is baffling.

For now, until the larger issue is dealt with, the status of the India-South Africa match and Sehwag’s suspension has to be solved. Unless there is to be a potentially damaging showdown and another series affected, there can only be one outcome. The match has to remain unofficial and Sehwag has to serve his suspension in the first Test against England.

First of all, India acted appropriately by refusing to participate in a Test with Denness as referee. It is especially true since the prevailing attitude appeared to be that by playing the Test, India would have shown it had come to its senses and recognised it had acted rashly. This would have been unacceptable given the lack of understanding of the motives behind the protest, so the BCCI had no choice but to act as it did. But equally so, the ICC had no option but to back its appointed official. The Test, in turn, had to be sacrificed.

The fact that captains Shaun Pollock, by his own admission, and Sourav Ganguly, by his own omission, did not take the game as seriously as they could have is statement enough about its status. It would be unfair to the players to retrospectively declare official a match they were told did not count. Given the lacklustre way it was contested, its integrity as a Test would be forever tainted.

But whatever the match’s eventual status, the ICC has to reserve the right to make instantaneous decisions in times of emergency. It is essential that the sport’s governing body has the authority to act swiftly to enforce its existing protocol. Its inability to be firm and decisive in the face of controversy on previous occasions was one of the reasons it was viewed with such scorn as a toothless organisation.

The ICC, in the form of chairman Malcolm Gray and chief executive Malcolm Speed, had to support its appointed match referee. Just as the BCCI had to act radically to be taken seriously, the ICC had to act as it did to preserve its own integrity.

The ICC is judged by how it acts in times of crisis and despite Gray’s ignorant and inconsiderate approach, if it was to retain any respect or future authority, it had maintain its policy in the interim until the issue could be debated in the appropriate forum. Otherwise, what kind of precedent would it have set? This particular match refereeing decision was unfair and deserved some form of challenge, but the next one may not be. That will change for the better when an appeals panel is formed, but for now national boards cannot subvert the governing body whenever they feel compelled to do so, at least not immediately. Change can be forced, as it may well be in this instance when the ICC next meets, but not capriciously when emotions are running high.

The immediate establishment of a review panel, as opposed to overturning Denness’s punishments arbitrarily in the manner of Dalmiya’s reprieve of Shoaib Akhtar when he was ICC head, would only have been a gentler way of admitting the ICC could be pressurised.

India has already made its point by refusing to play under Denness. The fact that the match was unofficial should not affect that. Dalmiya and the BCCI now have their starting point to call for an elimination of double standards, which should have been the purpose of the protest in the first place. It should have been designed to make the world take notice and consider the matter of discriminatory decisions seriously, which they now have an opportunity to achieve. To become sidetracked about the status of the match and Sehwag’s suspension would be folly.

That is the concession Dalmiya has to make. Then it would be up to the ICC to respond by actually listening to India about its concerns and those of other countries, if they have any. This is not the time for reticence. If there are grievances, then now is the time to make them known in an honest and constructive fashion, before a more professional system is adopted. The other member countries must listen to those grievances and make an attempt to understand them. Then, with five professional referees and an appeals board from next year, hopefully this contentious issue can be overcome.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw