Sports Blog
Strike Three - You're Out by Mike McLean
Posted by DJ DOMM Wednesday 9 January, 2008 02:13 PM
Triple M sports guy Mike 'Magic' McLean looks at the latest cricket controversy.
While the Indian cricket team and its fans go nuts over their loss in the second test at the SCG, while cricket commentators froth at the mouth over the death of sportsmanship and the need to sack Australian captain Ricky Ponting, another far more important point in our great game has been reached.
For the third time in recent history, the International Cricket Council has showed a complete lack of courage when dealing with a sub-continental cricket crisis.
The sub-continent may well be the future for cricket with millions of dollars pouring in for anything to do with a bat and a ball, but that should not guarantee that authorities from that area get whatever they want when they want.
Strike one came with the bowling action of world record wicket taker Muttiah Muralidaran. Murali has a deformity with his arm that he has had since birth that stops him from being able to straighten his arm. But unfortunately he throws. In particular Murali's "doosra" is diabolical and it is not possible to do what he does with the ball without throwing it.
After years of questioning and whispered comment something had to be done by the ICC. So what did they do? Suspend Murali and order remedial work on his action.
No.
The governing body took the amazing step of changing the law on the degree an elbow can bend when a bowler delivers. The tolerance level was moved to 15 degrees and Murali scraps in under that level and so he is allowed to continue bowling.
Murali is not at fault here at all. He is a wonderful young man and a pleasure to speak to, but his action is not in the spirit of the game. However the ICC has effectively swept his action "under the carpet" and it will never be dealt with again.
Strike two for the ICC came when Pakistan lost a test against England amid allegations of "ball-tampering". Pakistan refused to continue playing the test match and so the umpires did the right thing and awarded the match to England. The match referee then also followed the rules in suspending Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq.
Not surprisingly Pakistan appealed the suspension, as is their right, and what course of action did the ICC take. Amid the uproar from Pakistan our toothless tiger of a governing body hung umpire Darrel Hair out to dry making him the scapegoat and allowing Pakistan to have a win in a situation they should have been punished for.
Now the ICC has done it again. India don't want Steve Bucknor to umpire the third test despite the fact that he has been appointed to do so. Most people expected the ICC to say no to India's request as teams cannot start telling the authorities who can and can't umpire matches.
But not the ICC. Steve Bucknor is scapegoated, just like Darrell Hair, and in comes Billy Bowden as a replacement.
That's strike three for me and to borrow a term from another sport - Malcolm Speed you are out! The ICC Chief Executive should resign immediately and be replaced by someone who will govern the game of cricket for all regions, not just the one that has the deepest pockets.
Comments
It's the only way cricket can get itself from the back page to the front page. Even after that great match it's the negaitive that gravitates to the top. Seems to be the way for all sport these days.
Posted by silly mid on Wednesday 9 January, 2008 02:30 PM
Mike makes an extremely valid point here. The ICC is backing down a bit too much under the pressures from the sub-continent.
I haven't looked into the Murali saga in depth but that was and still remains a big contentious issue, I think Shoaib Akhtar of Pak has an angle in his elbow as well but why doesn't that come under scrutiny?
However, in the test between Pak & Eng the issue that was raised was whether umpire Darrell Hair could prove that Inzi or one of the team members were actually tempering with the ball? I think that could have led the ICC to back out of the controversy and allowed Pakistan off the hook.
In the case of Steve Bucknor and India, I am under the impression that this is not the first time doubts have been cast on the veteran's abilities. In most of the one-dayers and tests that Mr. Bucknor has officialled for the country in question, India has been dealt with more decisions against them than in their favour.
It's only so far that you can say that the team should get over and take the loss on the chin even though the match officials got it wrong. I am sure had 8 decisions gone against Aus in this match the whole of Aus would be furious that the 16th straight Test win got away due to bad umpiring. I don't quite also believe in the philosophy that some go against you and some don't, just because ever since I've been watching Cricket (close to 15yrs now,) most decisions have gone against India close to 85%than for them.
Mark Taylor screamed after he heard the Symonds catch when AUS were 6/193 and echoed the feeling that surely Mr. Bucknor was the only person on the ground who didn't hear that nick. Was it because both are from the Windies descent? We'll never know. The close stumpings could be brougth into the question here as well.
I am sure if Mr. Bucknor is not going to resign, the ICC is not in a position to sack any of their umpires because that will bring a huge uproar as well and as you quite rightly said leave 8 of 10 umpires on the list.
Posted by Rik Wednesday 9 January, 2008 06:30 PM
After watching the test match, these are the rules which are to be kept by the ICC:
(1) Ricky Ponting - (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.
(2) While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the tea ms .
(3) While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.
(4) UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board.
(5) All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RACISM only.
(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advice only. Player views from the other tea ms decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.
(7) NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA . This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.
(8) THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - "THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET" more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.
These rules will clarify better to the all the teams VISITING AUSTRALIA .
Hail Aussies !!! oo-oo aa-aa !!!
Posted by Gary B Wednesday 9 January, 2008 08:59 PM
Come on wake up people.
If before the match both sides agreed to take the oposing captains word on contentuous catch decisions (which it has been reported is the case) and then they do just that - then what's your problem?
If a West Indian (neutral) umpire makes some very bad decisions that unfortunately affect one side more than the other, how can you blame one of the teams - what's your problem?
If a player can run the length of the field and roll around on the ground in ecstasy after taking one of a possible 40 wickets in a match and this display be described as "passionate and wonderfull", what lenghs do you cellebration police allow a team to celebrate when they actually win the entire game? What's your problem?
And lastly, if, when your team loses a match by fair or foul, your immediate reaction is to put down your beer, run to the sewing room, start making an effigy, call 20 of your closest friends and organise a burning - then WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!!
Posted by Gazza Thursday 10 January, 2008 08:44 AM