NEWS
GROUNDS
COLUMNS
MATCH REPORTS
INTERVIEWS
ENEMY CAMP
GALLERY
SCHEDULE
FORUM

Ominous signals

When they are good, they’re very good. When they are bad, they’re awful. The first game of the one-day triangular series saw Pakistan in its two extremes. Fortunately for them, it was the former which prevailed as Pakistan shrugged off its poor batting form with a bowling effort inspired by the unexpected presence of one of the two fastest bowlers in the world, Shoaib Akhtar.

After a surprising reversal of Akhtar’s ban for throwing, at the behest of ICC president Jagmohan Dalmiya, the fast bowler flew across this broad continent from Perth to Brisbane to take part in Pakistan’s first match of the lengthy one-day campaign. How quickly fortunes can change in the game of cricket. Akhtar had not arrived in time for the start of the match but when he did reach the Gabba, and took the field, he was the catalyst behind an Australian collapse and a Pakistan victory. After a pair of losses to Australia ‘A’ and another defeat at the hands of Queensland, Pakistan suddenly had only its second win on the two-part tour of Australia, after victory in a sole tour match last year.

Had Pakistan lost the toss and been asked to field first, Akhtar would still have been permitted to play because Steve Waugh had generously agreed to allow Pakistan the use of a 12th man in the meantime, which Wasim Akram thanked him for. Like many people, Waugh believes Akhtar is good for the game.

Thankfully, Akhtar appeared to be greeted with great warmth by the majority of the sell-out Gabba crowd, who appreciated what he had gone through to be there. The same could not be said for Muttiah Muralitharan last season. Akhtar responded in kind to the patrons, waving to them before his first delivery and proceeding to take 3/31 from 7 overs. How surprised they must have been that he was ever there at all.

One day, Akhtar is banned for having an illegal bowling action and instructed to take corrective measures before his case is re-examined in a month. The next, his Board has won an unprecedented appeal and he turns out to play a leading role in Pakistan’s next international, without having missed a match. What, one has to wonder, is the point of having an ICC throwing committee? With the international panel of experts having arrived at its decision, it was totally undermined by the president and chairman of the ICC, Dalmiya and Sir Clyde Walcott, in arranging for it to be reversed.

Not for a moment is it being suggested here that Akhtar is a bowler with an illegal action, thrower, chucker or whatever you want to call it. Because if he does throw, then several others probably do, also. And even if Akhtar alone is judged to be a thrower, then it is time for the law to be changed because it is patently unfair for a bowler with his clean action to be banned.

The wording of the law makes it correct for umpires to call a bowler about whom they have any doubts and that could lead to the ridiculous situation of many bowlers being called simply because of the law’s ambiguity (even though that is a farce, as no international umpire would effectively ruin his reputation and hence his career by calling a bowler after witnessing the treatment given to Hair and Emerson). All of that, though, is entirely irrelevant.

The point is that the throwing committee, which was formed to make decisions on these matters, had its verdict promptly overturned after reaching an unpopular conclusion. After all the trouble to make sure this most sensitive of cricketing issues is handled in the proper manner and through the correct channels (although this was botched slightly by taking so long to do it), in order to avoid the embarrassment of having a bowler called on the field, they were overruled by a higher authority not qualified to adjudicate on the matter. Any last shred of faith in the system, which one Pakistan official clearly did not have by claiming the Akhtar ban was racially motivated, has been removed. The ICC is being made into a joke by… its own president and chairman.

The fact that the right thing has happened to Akhtar, insofar as he has resumed playing without interruption to his career, should not cloud the fact that the process by which it occurred was entirely inappropriate. The committee did not sit down and decide to reverse their decision. Why would they? They had already reached one after protracted deliberation and the only new twist was that the Pakistan Cricket Board had lodged an appeal, which there was no process in place to consider.

So, what we have seen now is this: When Muralitharan was no-balled for throwing in the international arena, outrage was expressed and it was declared that this should never be allowed to happen again, and umpires shall preferably lodge a report with the match referee to pass along to the ICC, or the referee himself should make his own recommendation to the ICC. Quite an amiable and controversy-free way of handling things, on the surface of it. But then it actually takes place, and internationally appointed referee John Reid makes a report regarding Shoaib Akhtar’s suspect action, and the eminent panel of ICC judges makes its decision, albeit slowly and with an unfortunate amount of media exposure. The decision was made, the bowler was told to stand down and correct a particular type of delivery, and the home board was informed. Apart from a few glitches this worked well enough, but for one thing: The Pakistan Cricket Board decides it does not like the verdict and lodges an appeal.

When it suits a particular cricket board, everything works out satisfactorily. Henry Olonga and Harbhajan Singh both had queries raised over their actions, their respective boards complied with the ruling, and they are both back playing international cricket. But then we have the Pakistan case, where they appeal and come to an arrangement with the ICC figurehead.

It is a no-win situation for cricket. Some cricket boards will fail to accept the umpire’s decision when their bowler is called for throwing, and others will fail to accept the ICC specially-appointed panel’s decision, made without the embarrassment of the bowler being no-balled, which was supposed to be all-important. The message this sends to the cricket world is loud and clear: If you don’t like it, then do what you want, because the ICC will not stand in your way.

Looking at the history of international cricket, it seems that bowlers with far more dubious actions than those of today were allowed to pass unscathed. By amending the relevant law, we could avoid the present controversies. But all the possible amending and improving will not matter a bit if the cricket boards of the world refuse to accept the decisions of the game’s governing body, and if the leaders of that very body choose to meddle. The signals which are being sent are ominous for the future of the game.

Daniel Laidlaw