Enough is enough Mr. Dalmiya

By Nirmal Shekar & Sanjay Rajan

CHENNAI, NOV. 28. There is a time to fight. And there is a time to retreat. Good fighters-winners, that is-know this. They know too that pulling back does not necessarily mean defeat, that it is a possible first step towards a bigger victory, and something done in larger interests.

At a time when nothing that is happening in the world of cricket quite seems cricket anymore, it is imperative on the part of everyone who loves the game to understand that this is no time to fight nor wash dirty linen in public.

And if Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya is serious about convincing anybody in this part of the world-even if he still believes that it does not matter to him what the men at Lord's think of him or his intentions-that he has the interests of the game at heart, then the BCCI supremo should take a step back.

That Virender Sehwag, the young man who is sadly caught up in the vortex of the unseemly controversy, has been named in the 14- member team announced on Wednesday for the first Test against England at Mohali, scheduled to begin on December 3, does not necessarily add fuel to the fire.

The International Cricket Council (ICC)-whose much abused match referee, Mr. Mike Denness, has since clarified that he penalised Sachin Tendulkar merely for cleaning the ball without informing the umpires and not for ball tampering-has given the BCCI a Friday-noon deadline to make clear its intentions vis a vis Sehwag.

In the event, this is not the appropriate time for shadow boxing. Cloak and dagger games to advance one's political ambitions may appear tempting but they should be avoided at all costs.

What should be done now in unambiguous terms is this: the BCCI should clearly inform the ICC before the set deadline that it does not intend to play Sehwag in the XI at Mohali, that it will abide by the ban imposed on the player.

This might appear, on paper, a clear loss of face for Mr. Dalmiya and the BCCI. But it is better this way than to see mud on the face of the great game itself.

After all, merely because the BCCI decides to take a step back for the moment it does not mean that all is lost. Mr. Dalmiya and his supporters can always use the platform of the ICC Executive Committee to seek far reaching changes in the way the game is controlled by match referees.

That-the ICC Executive-is the right forum in which to continue the fight, if the fight is for a just cause. Instead, if Mr. Dalmiya and the BCCI should choose to continue their confrontation with the parent body through the pages of newspapers and magazines, they would be venturing into dangerous territory-dangerous not so much to these men as to the game, its stars and its millions of fans.

This is precisely why, now that the BCCI president has put across to the ICC his point about the discriminating attitudes of match referees via a vis Indian teams loud and clear, he should not make it a prestige issue.

It would be prudent for him to step down from his moral high ground and allow the storm to blow over in the best interests of the game.

One could well say that India, by its actions, has forced the ICC to take such a tough stand on the issue.

There was no logic in Mr. Dalmiya asking for the match referee, Mr. Denness, to be replaced midway through a series. For, the fundamental issue at stake for the ICC in BCCI's demand for the removal of Mr. Denness for the third Test (the BCCI, at its working committee three days ago, has decided to permanently boycott Mr. Denness) is its right, as the world governing body for cricket, to appoint referees and umpires, and for those officials to make decisions which are respected by both players and Boards. ``Without this right, the sport could descend into anarchy,'' the ICC has said.

The ICC had gone even further in explaining its stand. In a media release it had said, ``It would have been very easy for the ICC to have replaced Mr. Denness with an alternative referee and thereby ducked this issue, but that would have set a very dangerous precedent. Thereafter, any country not happy with an umpire or referee for whatever reason, could have chosen to refuse to play a match. Clearly this would be an untenable situation.''

As such, asking the ICC to bow to its demands is hoping for the impossible. As we understand it was the outcome of pent-up frustration. But it could have been brought up at the ICC meeting after having played the Centurion Test under protest. As such, with the exception of Virender Sehwag, the other five were given suspended sentences, which is just a warning.

The UCBSA has stated that it did not regard the match as an official Test match and the South African board is in the clear now.

In this issue, the ICC may have the backing of at least eight out of the 10 Test members. If the stand-off continues, it could develop into a full-blown confrontation.

The ICC president, Mr. Malcolm Gray, has said that the five-man panel of match referees, once constituted and made operational in April of 2002, would function in a unified manner when it came to interpreting and enforcing the rules and that the question of reviewing the performance and decisions of match referees would be considered seriously and appropriate measures put in place.

Mr. Dalmiya has made his point. Now he has to act with the best interest of the game in mind. Any other course would be perilous.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Anand scores easy win to stay in fray
Next     : A welcome move by the selectors