Tweet
We must maintain 'spirit' of the game
published: Wednesday | January 9, 2008
INTERNATIONAL CRICKET Council (ICC) Elite Panel umpire Steve Bucknor has caused quite a stir due to some highly controversial decisions in the second Test match between Australia and India in Sydney, which Australia won by 122 runs.
p>Two of the decisions made by Bucknor went against the Indian team and one, certainly that pertaining to Aussie batsman Andrew Symonds, had a big impact on the game.
While the Australians were batting, Bucknor declined a caught behind appeal off Symonds when he had only scored 30, with Australia reeling at 130 for six. Symonds, who later admitted he had edged the ball into the wicketkeeper's gloves, went on to score 132 more runs and make his highest Test score, 162 not out, while guiding Australia to a first innings total of 463.
Unfavourable decisions
As India batted to save the match in their second innings, a Bucknor decision for a caught behind off Rahul Dravid (for 38 at 115 for four), while he batted in tandem with Saurav Ganguly, triggered a middle-order collapse from which they never recovered and were eventually bowled out for 210.
The bat of Dravid, who had opened the innings and was batting solidly, was clearly behind his pad, far away from the ball which brushed the outer fringes of the pad. The Indian batsman was given out caught behind, not lbw.
In total, there were six decisions that the Indians never viewed favourably.
Bucknor has a 'decision' history with the Indians, who have won four of the 17 Tests in which he has officiated and recent events have only rekindled India's 'fire', or dislike if you may for, the Jamaican who has been involved in at least five controversial decisions in series stretching from 1992 in South Africa to 2004 in Pakistan.
Now they are hopping mad. They burnt effigies of both Bucknor and fellow umpire Mark Benson in India and I don't think anyone needs to warn the affable Jamaican to stay far from those Asian shores.
Also, India called for his removal from the umpiring panel for the third Test which starts next week, plus threatening to forfeit the series if a three-match ban on Harbhajan Singh for a racist jibe against Symonds was not lifted.
Whither Bucknor?
Both demands were met, with Singh given an appeal hearing. Straight off the bat, it appears a move by the ICC to ensure the continuance of the serie in Bucknor's case, ICC CEO, Malcolm Speed, said they had not acted on India's insistence.
An online report quoted him saying: "It is accepted that Steve, and his on-field colleague Mark Benson, did not have good games by their very high standards. We feel that given the added pressure and attention Steve's presence would have at the third Test, it is better for the match and for Steve himself if he does not take part." It added: "The ICC remains the sole body responsible for the appointment of umpires and no team has the right to object to any appointment."
It remains to be seen where the career path of Bucknor, now 61 years, will turn. With 120 Tests under his belt, he is the most experienced ICC umpire. His record extends to the fact that he has also stood in an unprecedented five World Cup finals.
There were some other decisions that under other circumstances might not have been contentious, but given the mean-spirited way in which the game unfurled, they added to the major points of issue.
Umpires make the decisions for caught behinds, but there is the odd batsman nowadays who makes a habit of walking before the umpire signals, notably retired West Indies captain Brian Lara and Australia's vice captain, Adam Gilchrist.
A batsman is never compelled to walk and ultimately, it is the umpire's decision. The fact that only these two, and very few others that would have to be carefully chosen, 'walk' clearly shows that much of the games are not being played in the 'true spirit'.
Unsportsmanlike conduct
This does not affect cricket only, and stronger measures by the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) to curb unsportsmanlike conduct point to that trend.
It is not good for sport because while decisions rest ultimately with officials, winning, and at all costs at that, are not the only objectives to be gained from match routines which impact heavily on health, social, racial and other issues.
Sport has played such a huge role in clearing up deep social and racial issues especially. One only has to look at South Africa, who are now ranked number two in the world. When they ended apartheid rule, the doors were opened for South Africa's participation in the international sporting arena.
Even then, and rather ironically, they have also faced racist taunts with the black players in their team, including Makhaya Ntini.
Singh had initially been given a three-match ban for making racist comments of the 'monkey' kind to Symonds, the only non-white player on the Australian team, and now allegations are being made against Aussie spinner Brad Hogg, for abusive remarks to Indian skipper Anil Kumble and his deputy, Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
Of interest, though, is that the cricketing countries that have chiefly been embroiled in racism rows, namely South Africa, Australia and India, are those which had racist cultures or institutionalised systems of inequality. An exception to this occurred during the past Australia-England series, in which Monty Panesar, of Indian descent, was targeted.
The players from outside the well-established sect in these countries are exceptional and it lends credence to the thought that part of the taunting is geared more towards affecting that individual's performance in a negative way, through making them feel inferior, rather than a segregative manner.
Ponting's approach
Given the ugly spin-offs from the second Test, Australia's team has received a backlash in its own country with syndicated columnist Peter Roebuck calling for its national captain, Ricky Ponting, to be dismissed as Cricket Australia should not tolerate the "arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain".
Additionally, in an online poll conducted by another top newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, 79 per cent of respondents said the team did not play in the true spirit of the game, while 83 per cent said Ponting was not a good ambassador for the game.
This comes in lieu of the fact that he immediately reported to the umpires (as protocol dictates) Harbhajan's alleged racist comment. Former Australia captain Steve Waugh suggested that Ponting should have had a meeting with the Indian captain. Now, there's some spirit.
published: Wednesday | January 9, 2008
INTERNATIONAL CRICKET Council (ICC) Elite Panel umpire Steve Bucknor has caused quite a stir due to some highly controversial decisions in the second Test match between Australia and India in Sydney, which Australia won by 122 runs.
p>Two of the decisions made by Bucknor went against the Indian team and one, certainly that pertaining to Aussie batsman Andrew Symonds, had a big impact on the game.
While the Australians were batting, Bucknor declined a caught behind appeal off Symonds when he had only scored 30, with Australia reeling at 130 for six. Symonds, who later admitted he had edged the ball into the wicketkeeper's gloves, went on to score 132 more runs and make his highest Test score, 162 not out, while guiding Australia to a first innings total of 463.
Unfavourable decisions
As India batted to save the match in their second innings, a Bucknor decision for a caught behind off Rahul Dravid (for 38 at 115 for four), while he batted in tandem with Saurav Ganguly, triggered a middle-order collapse from which they never recovered and were eventually bowled out for 210.
The bat of Dravid, who had opened the innings and was batting solidly, was clearly behind his pad, far away from the ball which brushed the outer fringes of the pad. The Indian batsman was given out caught behind, not lbw.
In total, there were six decisions that the Indians never viewed favourably.
Bucknor has a 'decision' history with the Indians, who have won four of the 17 Tests in which he has officiated and recent events have only rekindled India's 'fire', or dislike if you may for, the Jamaican who has been involved in at least five controversial decisions in series stretching from 1992 in South Africa to 2004 in Pakistan.
Now they are hopping mad. They burnt effigies of both Bucknor and fellow umpire Mark Benson in India and I don't think anyone needs to warn the affable Jamaican to stay far from those Asian shores.
Also, India called for his removal from the umpiring panel for the third Test which starts next week, plus threatening to forfeit the series if a three-match ban on Harbhajan Singh for a racist jibe against Symonds was not lifted.
Whither Bucknor?
Both demands were met, with Singh given an appeal hearing. Straight off the bat, it appears a move by the ICC to ensure the continuance of the serie in Bucknor's case, ICC CEO, Malcolm Speed, said they had not acted on India's insistence.
An online report quoted him saying: "It is accepted that Steve, and his on-field colleague Mark Benson, did not have good games by their very high standards. We feel that given the added pressure and attention Steve's presence would have at the third Test, it is better for the match and for Steve himself if he does not take part." It added: "The ICC remains the sole body responsible for the appointment of umpires and no team has the right to object to any appointment."
It remains to be seen where the career path of Bucknor, now 61 years, will turn. With 120 Tests under his belt, he is the most experienced ICC umpire. His record extends to the fact that he has also stood in an unprecedented five World Cup finals.
There were some other decisions that under other circumstances might not have been contentious, but given the mean-spirited way in which the game unfurled, they added to the major points of issue.
Umpires make the decisions for caught behinds, but there is the odd batsman nowadays who makes a habit of walking before the umpire signals, notably retired West Indies captain Brian Lara and Australia's vice captain, Adam Gilchrist.
A batsman is never compelled to walk and ultimately, it is the umpire's decision. The fact that only these two, and very few others that would have to be carefully chosen, 'walk' clearly shows that much of the games are not being played in the 'true spirit'.
Unsportsmanlike conduct
This does not affect cricket only, and stronger measures by the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) to curb unsportsmanlike conduct point to that trend.
It is not good for sport because while decisions rest ultimately with officials, winning, and at all costs at that, are not the only objectives to be gained from match routines which impact heavily on health, social, racial and other issues.
Sport has played such a huge role in clearing up deep social and racial issues especially. One only has to look at South Africa, who are now ranked number two in the world. When they ended apartheid rule, the doors were opened for South Africa's participation in the international sporting arena.
Even then, and rather ironically, they have also faced racist taunts with the black players in their team, including Makhaya Ntini.
Singh had initially been given a three-match ban for making racist comments of the 'monkey' kind to Symonds, the only non-white player on the Australian team, and now allegations are being made against Aussie spinner Brad Hogg, for abusive remarks to Indian skipper Anil Kumble and his deputy, Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
Of interest, though, is that the cricketing countries that have chiefly been embroiled in racism rows, namely South Africa, Australia and India, are those which had racist cultures or institutionalised systems of inequality. An exception to this occurred during the past Australia-England series, in which Monty Panesar, of Indian descent, was targeted.
The players from outside the well-established sect in these countries are exceptional and it lends credence to the thought that part of the taunting is geared more towards affecting that individual's performance in a negative way, through making them feel inferior, rather than a segregative manner.
Ponting's approach
Given the ugly spin-offs from the second Test, Australia's team has received a backlash in its own country with syndicated columnist Peter Roebuck calling for its national captain, Ricky Ponting, to be dismissed as Cricket Australia should not tolerate the "arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain".
Additionally, in an online poll conducted by another top newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, 79 per cent of respondents said the team did not play in the true spirit of the game, while 83 per cent said Ponting was not a good ambassador for the game.
This comes in lieu of the fact that he immediately reported to the umpires (as protocol dictates) Harbhajan's alleged racist comment. Former Australia captain Steve Waugh suggested that Ponting should have had a meeting with the Indian captain. Now, there's some spirit.
Comment