Sunday, November 25, 2001
I certainly don't envy the lot of cricket writers in this country.
In the space of two days, and 1500-odd words, I have been called more names --- fool, ostrich, anti-national being among the more printable expletives hurled at me -- than I have in my entire life.
What has got the goat of these letter-writers are two of my articles, one questioning whether Mike Denness's decisions smacked of racism and another arguing that Sachin Tendulkar had indeed breached the laws and deserved what he got.
We can argue till the cows come home about the procedural lapses in Mike Denness's decisions. Agreed, the match refree could have handled the whole situation a lot better than he did. Agreed, he went way beyond his brief. Agreed, he handed out five shockingly unfair decisions. But what I don't agree with is that Sachin Tendulkar did no wrong and that the whole episode is somehow linked to the colour of our skins. . (If indeed, as most people argue, Sachin didn't tamper the ball, what was there for the umpires to report? But by cleaning dirt of the seams, he violated the rules, and there was no way the umpires standing on the ground could have seen him do that. Only someone watching television, would have noticed it. He did, and he punished Sachin for it!)
Of course, we could take umbrage at Mike Denness's words that "Sachin Tendulkar brought the game into disrepute". It would be fair to argue, that Mike Denness is not the moral custodian of the game. But I heard no one say a word about that.
Instead, we are trying to argue on technicalities. The ball was 19 overs old. Sachin has played the game in true spirit for 12 long years (by the way, guys, the past is never yardstick for breaches of the present). If Sachin did indeed tamper the ball, why didn't the umpires find anything wrong with it? Why did Mike Denness unilaterally take the call?
But, there is a due process involved in handling these issues. And I think, this is where the BCCI, bowing to public outrage, has gone way way overboard.
The BCCI's tackling of the issue has been as inept as the ICC's and Mike Denness's.
This was a golden opportunity for it to sit with the ICC and push for a better system of refreeing. It should have canvassed support from Pakistan and Sri Lankan boards, who have, like India, in the past been at the receiving end of unfair decisions. Jagmohan Dalmiya should have seized the moment. Instead, he took the opportunity to rattle his sabre.
The stand-off reminds of me of Robin Hood's first encounter with Little John (the monicker no reflection of the man's size) on thin, creaky log bridge over a foaming, angry river. That one ended up with Robin Hood sputtering in the water, and Little John standing victoriously on the bridge. Of course, in the legendary tale, the two foes quickly kissed and made up.
This one promises to end with both parties soaking wet. And cricket itself going downstream. Unless of course, wiser counsel prevails.
In the space of two days, and 1500-odd words, I have been called more names --- fool, ostrich, anti-national being among the more printable expletives hurled at me -- than I have in my entire life.
What has got the goat of these letter-writers are two of my articles, one questioning whether Mike Denness's decisions smacked of racism and another arguing that Sachin Tendulkar had indeed breached the laws and deserved what he got.
We can argue till the cows come home about the procedural lapses in Mike Denness's decisions. Agreed, the match refree could have handled the whole situation a lot better than he did. Agreed, he went way beyond his brief. Agreed, he handed out five shockingly unfair decisions. But what I don't agree with is that Sachin Tendulkar did no wrong and that the whole episode is somehow linked to the colour of our skins. . (If indeed, as most people argue, Sachin didn't tamper the ball, what was there for the umpires to report? But by cleaning dirt of the seams, he violated the rules, and there was no way the umpires standing on the ground could have seen him do that. Only someone watching television, would have noticed it. He did, and he punished Sachin for it!)
Of course, we could take umbrage at Mike Denness's words that "Sachin Tendulkar brought the game into disrepute". It would be fair to argue, that Mike Denness is not the moral custodian of the game. But I heard no one say a word about that.
Instead, we are trying to argue on technicalities. The ball was 19 overs old. Sachin has played the game in true spirit for 12 long years (by the way, guys, the past is never yardstick for breaches of the present). If Sachin did indeed tamper the ball, why didn't the umpires find anything wrong with it? Why did Mike Denness unilaterally take the call?
But, there is a due process involved in handling these issues. And I think, this is where the BCCI, bowing to public outrage, has gone way way overboard.
The BCCI's tackling of the issue has been as inept as the ICC's and Mike Denness's.
This was a golden opportunity for it to sit with the ICC and push for a better system of refreeing. It should have canvassed support from Pakistan and Sri Lankan boards, who have, like India, in the past been at the receiving end of unfair decisions. Jagmohan Dalmiya should have seized the moment. Instead, he took the opportunity to rattle his sabre.
The stand-off reminds of me of Robin Hood's first encounter with Little John (the monicker no reflection of the man's size) on thin, creaky log bridge over a foaming, angry river. That one ended up with Robin Hood sputtering in the water, and Little John standing victoriously on the bridge. Of course, in the legendary tale, the two foes quickly kissed and made up.
This one promises to end with both parties soaking wet. And cricket itself going downstream. Unless of course, wiser counsel prevails.
# posted by Ashok @ 9:58 PM 
