|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 7 August 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Sports | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Asians at mercy of whites? Much has been said over the years about consistency in umpiring around the world. Now the time has come to apply the same formula to match referees whose interpretation of principles of natural justice and decision-making has wavered like a fluttering flag. In the International Cricket Council's (ICC) Playing Handbook there is a section ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials and another the ICC Umpires Code of Conduct. Very soon the ICC will have to include one for the Match Referees as well. The question bandied about in cricket circles was whether the rules of natural justice was applied fairly in imposing heavy fines on three Sri Lankan cricketers by South African-born ICC match referee Mike Procter. Kumar Sangakkara was fined 100 percent of his match fee and two others Tillakaratne Dilshan and Upul Chandana 50 percent each of their match fees. The charge was 'for using offensive language' during the Asia Cup final against India at the R. Premadasa Stadium last Sunday. Upul Chandana and Tillakaratne were reported for a Level 1 offence under clause 1.4 of the ICC Code, which relates to 'using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting', and Sangakkara was reported for a Level 2 offence under clause 2.9, which also relates to 'using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting' but provides for a higher penalty to be sanctioned than a Level 1 offence. Umpires David Shepherd and Billy Bowden reported all three players. Where the principles of natural justice don't apply in this instance is that the players have been found guilty solely by what the umpires have said in their report and on the way the players reacted. Not on evidence. Before a man is committed to a crime there has to be proven evidence that he is guilty. In the case of Messrs Sangakkara, Dilshan and Chandana they have been unfairly punished. There was insufficient evidence to pin charges on them. The evidence the TV and the microphones provided was inconclusive. If Procter was going to pass judgement on the three players solely on the umpires report there was no need for a hearing to take place because it was already premeditated. The funniest part of this episode is that the victims Harbhajan Singh and Mohammad Kaif had said the accused never used any swear words at them and they were not sure whether any of them if said, was directed at them. What Sangakkara told Harbhajan when he came to bat was that 'you look smart in short sleeves but you bowl in long sleeves' or something to that effect. The three players it seems have been fined by the way the players' reacted to whatever comments that was made against them. If that is the case then Procter has not applied the principles of natural justice properly. Take the case of Muralitharan and Hussain at Kandy last year. The former England captain called Muralitharan an 'effing cheat and an effing chucker', when he came to bat. Muralitharan surprised by such words reacted and reported the incident to the umpires. But due to inconclusive TV evidence Hussain escaped without penalty from match referee Clive Lloyd who said that the principles of natural justice had to be applied in this instance because he didn't have sufficient evidence although he knew that Hussain had said something to Muralitharan. Then there is also the case of the McGrath-Sarwan incident in the Antigua Test last year where both players were involved in a heated exchange of words and nearly came to blows with each other. On that occasion the umpire was Shepherd and match referee Procter. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack reports: "McGrath who started the verbal war, became utterly incensed at Sarwan's riposte - he apparently referred to McGrath's wife. After a set-to with the batsman, he wagged his finger at umpire Shepherd, demanding he get involved. Despite this, no official action was taken..." Neither player was penalised for bringing the game into disrepute because 'the incident was sorted out on the field'. Why couldn't this incident involving Sri Lankan and Indian players be sorted out on the field? Were umpires Shepherd and Bowden incompetent enough to allow it to go to the level of match referee? Bowden is the umpire who failed to report West Indies captain Brian Lara when he accused him of being an 'effing cheat who didn't know his effing job' on the field. All he said was 'nothing happened'. Do umpires and match referees treat superstars differently to ordinary mortals? These incidents clearly show that there is a different set of rules for different countries. Consistency seems to be lacking on the part of the umpires as well as the match referees when it comes to applying the rules of natural justice and cricketers from Asia are the much-maligned victims. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
