ICC -- A bunch of jokers

13 September 2006 |

Time and again International Cricket Council makes it a point to reveal its true glory to the millions of cricket fans around the world. Cricket administrators are usually politicians who don't make the cut in the political arena or they are failed lawyers who cannot win a decent case in a court of law for their clients.

After reading this report, you would start to wonder whether ICC is an administrative body or a club of a bunch of jokers.
Ponting hit by fine for dissent

Ricky Ponting has been fined his match fee for showing dissent at an umpire during Australia's 78-run one-day win over the West Indies in Kuala Lumpur. Ponting was charged by the umpires with breaching cricket's code of conduct relating to dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse.

The Aussie skipper pleaded guilty at a hearing led by match ref Chris Broad.

Broad said: "It is not acceptable for any player, let alone a captain, to question an umpire's decision."

It was Ponting's second dissent offence within the past year - the other was in April against Bangladesh during the second Test at Chittagong. The latest charge followed his reaction to the calling of a wide by umpire Asad Rauf in the 33rd over of West Indies' innings. Ponting walked up to Rauf to query the decision.

Dissent is unacceptable says ICC. That sort of a law is an ass. Malcolm Speed and Percy Sonn (two lawyers, ironically) who run ICC should know that there is nothing wrong with dissent as long as it is not violent or abusive.

A captain should be allowed to speak to the umpire. If Ponting insulted the umpire - then yes, by all means don't fine him, suspend him.

International Cricket is played by adults who are eligible to vote, perform a surgery, so on and so forth. To enforce a diktat that international cricketers should not disagree with the umpires is NONSENSE.

Dissent: the fact of having or expressing opinions that are different from those that are officially accepted. (In this case, umpire's decision is final!)

If a batsman is given out, and the captain of the fielding side calls him back, isn't that dissent too?

ICC has no f&%king clue about the world they live in.

What sort of a society wouldn't accept dissent? Chris Broad, the match referee, who says, "It is not acceptable for any player, let alone a captain, to question an umpire's decision."

Broad should throw away his British passport and take up an honorary citizenship in Saudi Arabia.

The right to dissent is the very essence of equality enshrined in democracy. If ICC and its officers like Broad keep behaving like feudal lords, then the real stakeholders of the game (the ones who play and watch it) should get rid of the ICC through democratic means.

All the ICC member countries (with the exception of Zimbabwe and Pakistan) have excellent democratic record. We shouldn't allow the existence of an anti-democratic institution within a democratic space.

It is a pity that some people think: enforcement of authority ensures respect.