Not fine. Not cricket

Avinash Subramaniam

So Saurav and Dahiya have been censured. Well, not yet. (At the time of writing.) But if past record is anything to go by, they most certainly will. Which is what this article is about. And do pardon the pun in the title. It's not really intended. The fact of the matter is this is not the first time this kind of thing is happening.

Worse, the kind of attitude we've seen match referees take vis-à-vis behavior on the field is just one manifestation of the definite presence of the R-factor: racism. (There, I've said it.) The big, bad word that rears its ugly head in a number of subversive ways and yet, doesn't exist in the politically correct corridors of the ICC.

Consider the evidence on hand. When Mcgrath abuses the batsman, he's being aggressive, hungry, and someone who ought to be emulated. (This writer pleads guilty to the last.) When was the last time Mcgrath was censured for anything? Forget it.

Or when Venkatesh Prasad goes a bit over the top after taking Slater's wicket, he's censured for celebrating the achievement. Great! Let's fine Mcgrath every time he gets Lara's wicket.

Or when Warne indulges in unnecessary prattle with the opposition, they say he's working on their minds. They say it's all part of the game. They say this is what separates the men from the boys. They even say this is one of the things that makes him the incredible cricketer he most certainly is. (Give or take a couple of disagreeable personality quirks. But then, for some that's just cricket.)

Or when Alec Stewart is accused of being involved in match-fixing it's all swept under the carpet with little more than a cursory conversation by way of questioning. (What questioning? We're spotless white. We're white and we're clean.)

Or when Mark Waugh admits to taking a bribe, they say let bygones be bygones. And that it's the Pakis who made them do it. And that when it comes to the sub-continent, touring teams are faced with tremendous pressure to say no to bribes and other such 'temptations.' So they must be given a wider margin. (What a load of crock!)

Or, speaking of temptations, when Hansie Cronje was first accused of match-fixing, they said he was a man of God and he couldn't have done it. They even questioned the very competence of the investigating agencies. (Incidentally, how come they never considered Azhar as a man of God in the same boat?)

And while on Azhar and Cronje, when Azhar is banned for life, Mr. Allan Border stands up and voices his opinion on how he may have been let off lightly. And what is his most esteemed point of view on the Cronje punishment? Or is he just a 'man of God' who succumbed to a rare 'temptation' and should therefore be left alone to burn in the fires of hell. (Figuratively speaking.)

Or when the Indian government decides to cancel the tour to Pakistan the ICC decides we should be made to pay for it. For? For fearing the safety of our players and not wanting to play in a country that is clearly hostile to ours? (Where were they when the Aussies nearly jeopardized the 1996 World Cup by refusing to play in Sri Lanka?)

Or when Rudi or Peter Parker or Hair or Harper make horrendous umpiring snafu after horrendous umpiring snafus, they're only human. But when umpires from the sub-continent or the Windies do so, it's time to re-look the panel of umpires.

Or...should I go on? No, I rest my case. Opinions and reactions, adverse or otherwise, are welcomed at avinash@eurorscgindia.com.

Avinash Subramaniam

Mail Avinash Subramanium