Men in flannels & men in suits

THE ESSENCE OF sport is the willingness to counter challenges within a set of mutually agreed-upon rules, the ability to face up to uncertainties and the courage to accept all decisions - just or unjust - in one's stride. It is for such heroism that sportsmen the world over win popular adulation. Challenging unfair decisions is one thing; it is entirely another to browbeat a system, howsoever victimised a nation may feel. While the former aims to find an honourable acquittal, the latter seeks to score, if at all, a pyrrhic victory. On all counts, cricket administrators of South Africa and India have not acquitted themselves well by replacing the controversial match referee, Mr. Mike Denness. As much as the disproportionate penalties handed down by the match referee defied the spirit of the game, the all- or-nothing stand adopted by the Indian board was not cricket. Remonstrations are not the only manifestation of collective courage. Clearly, India did have a good case in its favour at Port Elizabeth. All that was required to be done was to take a long-term, dispassionate approach to resolve the controversy in a sportive manner. But, by blatantly defying the International Cricket Council (ICC), of which both South Africa and India are members, more mud has been put on the seams of cricket.

Certainly all is not well with the system put in place and approved by cricket-playing nations, India and South Africa included. If Mr. Denness' decision came as a sledgehammer to swat a fly, the decision by the two boards to replace him - even if it meant earning a downgrade in the status of the match which started today between India & South Africa - effectively punctures the face to cure a cold. In a way, India's administrators have lost the opportunity to convince the ICC that corrections are required in the process of how the game is judged. Much of the heartburn from Port Elizabeth could have been avoided if there was a built-in system of appeal. It is also important to realise that in a game there is a limit to the appellate process. The cricket boards of India and South Africa would have done well for cricket had they together brought in a positive change. This could have been done without resorting to drastic measures and would have ensured that the game was back on the wicket. By taking needlessly tough stances, however, the men in suits have sadly precipitated an already fragile situation.

That South Africa's cricket administrators backed the Indian harangue should give no cause for public elation. It is important to realise that the decision to do so was based on factors beyond sports: the international politics of cricket administration, the commercial interests involved and, not to mention, the long ties between India and South Africa. That over the years the parameters of the game of cricket have widened considerably is evident. The onset of slow-motion television coverage has dramatically changed the impact of the game on its followers. Simultaneously, the popularity of the men in whites has also spawned lucrative commercial interests. All these factors, however, should not dilute the spirit of the game. It is now important that India's cricket players do justice to the large support they enjoy. It is also important that all those associated with the game, both players and administrators, perform their task in a manner that does not lower the status of sport in the public eye. Port Elizabeth has, in a way, brought to the fore a broad picture of the ailments that have become part of the game. It is now time to give the followers the good game of cricket they rightly deserve.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The CBSE's ``edict''
Next     : Trading illusions