Time for honesty

If there can be anything positive to emerge from the controversy generated by match referee Mike Denness's punishments handed down to six Indian cricketers, it is that it might finally bring the issue of biased officiating to a head. It has been simmering away in the background for a long time now and while it’s doubtful it will be satisfactorily resolved, it might at least bring to the entire cricket world’s attention the need for a review of how and why India has been victimised by match referees.

Until now, I don’t believe the cricket world has had much of an idea of how India has seen its treatment by match referees. In fact, the reaction to these latest punishments will probably be seen as hysterical without an appreciation of what has happened in the past. Many probably won't realise that the outpouring of emotion is not truly a reaction to the latest case alone but is actually the culmination of feeling over many instances of unfair treatment.

The reason I say that is because until starting to follow Indian cricket around three years ago, I had no idea how Indians felt about their cricket team’s treatment from umpires and match referees and was indeed very sceptical about it. Essentially, when a decision or official judgement does not concern your own team, you digest it with detached interest and then quickly forget about it. Then when the next incident comes along, you again see it in isolation as being unfortunate, unlucky or inconsistent, while not drawing a relation between the two.

It is not until you begin to follow the situation more closely, and are made aware of a history of dubious and discriminatory sentences, that you start to realise the Indian media and supporters might have a point. It’s distasteful, because in some way you can’t help but feel it reflects upon you and your own point of view, but eventually I have come to realise that India is so consistently victimised by officialdom that a conclusion of bias becomes an uncomfortable truth. In cases too numerous to mention, the evidence is there. The actions of Mike Denness are just the final proof.

Hopefully, Denness's sentences are so shocking that they will cause an official review of the way punishments have been handed out for some offences and not others. The overhaul of the match referee panel is already on the way; hopefully there will now be an honest assessment of how and why some referees performed the way they did so there will be no lingering bitterness and mistrust carried over to the future. It is time for honesty.

There is almost no need to refute and expose the hypocrisy of Denness's charges because it's so obvious to all. The charge of ball tampering against Sachin Tendulkar is perhaps the most emotive and controversial. Tendulkar is the world's highest profile cricketer and he knows that every time he takes the field he is under the most intense scrutiny imaginable. For him to intentionally tamper with the ball on the way back to his bowling mark with the intention to cheat, when the camera is often in a tight close-up of the bowler, would be so incredibly stupid that it is an insult to his intelligence to take it any further than a warning to be careful what he does with his fingernails.

Like many others, I saw the alleged ball tampering incident on television at the time, the commentator made passing reference to cleaning the dirt out of the seam, and that was that. It was not as if Tendulkar was attempting to lift the seam or alter the shape of the ball. He wasn’t even working at it vigorously. Surely on the basis of evidence and Tendulkar’s impeccable record, the incident should not have gone any further than a meeting, if it warranted any attention at all.

The method by which Tendulkar and the Indians were reported is also an apparent breach of procedure, if it is true that the South African television company which produces the coverage first notified Denness of any of the offences to which he subsequently took action. The truth of that may never be known.

Of greatest concern, though, is the prejudiced way in which Denness elected to enforce the ICC’s crackdown on sledging and dissent. Last month, ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed said in a press release that the ICC were aiming to increase penalties for on-field misbehaviour. So how was it possible for Denness, in good conscience, to punish the incidences of dissent while ignoring the apparent sledging by Pollock and Kallis?

Assuming sledging entails speaking disparagingly towards the batsman, which most agree it does, Pollock and Kallis were both guilty of it in the second Test. Whether or not they actually used profanity is moot. Like dissent, the image it projects is the same. Can Dennis have only received one half of the ICC’s get-tough directive to match referees?

The laws themselves have been used in a ridiculously arbitrary fashion that, if applied fairly under the guidelines in which Denness used them, would result in widespread suspensions. If Code No. 4 was applied to all as it was to Virender Sehwag, half the South African and Australian teams would be suspended and undoubtedly a lot of other cricketers as well. The ICC must ensure its laws are applied fairly to all nations, white, Asian or whatever, or else the game will be torn apart.

A latent but essential aspect of the controversy is the larger issue of how different nations view similar breaches of the code of conduct. It’s a fact that cricket people in Australia and South Africa generally see "gamesmanship", or sledging, as an acceptable or at least tolerable part of a highly competitive sport, while finding excessive appealing and other antics not generally adopted by their players irksome and against the spirit of the game. It is a cultural thing and, yes, incredibly hypocritical. The feeling is that "the way we play the game is fine, if you don’t like it that’s your problem", while at the same time finding the conduct of other sides worthy of punishment.

No one will admit it but it is also true that sledging or dissent committed by an Indian player is harder to accept than when it is committed by an Australian or a South African, from whom it is expected and tolerated. As an Australian, I know that until recently, seeing McGrath or Kallis sledge a batsman did not make me pay any particular attention, while I did take extra notice when an Indian player prolonged an appeal or showed signs of dissent, either because I was not used to it or possibly prejudiced in some small way. You can bet any hint of misconduct from an Indian player attracts greater attention from match referees, too.

Now, that is a natural reaction and not necessarily bigoted. However, if match referees can’t recognise WHY they are only taking notice of comparatively rare and minor misconduct by Indian players, and then don’t ensure that other players are punished equally for their offences then, if not truly racist in the worst sense of the word, it is certainly discriminatory.

That should not be so difficult to do. If it is, then they are unfit for their jobs. The first requirement for a match referee should be impartiality, and while no-one can truly be neutral, it should not be hard to apply the rules fairly. So much that occurs in cricket is open to interpretation, which is why it's so fun to write about it, but if Sehwag and co are guilty of dissent, then Pollock and Kallis are guilty of sledging. There is just no room to rationalise otherwise. To ignore one and not the other is indeed biased.

For me, the worst part of this episode is that it can only harm relations between the world cricket community, and that is really sad.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw