Wednesday, 5 November 2008

What does the I in ICC actually stand for?

India seem pretty intent on being a big bully when it comes to world cricket. It feels like they're trying to project themselves as bigger than the game with their refusal to accept Gambhir's one match ban for elbowing Shane Watson. The situation seems pretty clear, under ICC regulations, the appeal verdict is final and cannot be questioned by a player or his board. Yet the BCCI has gone ahead and drafted a "strongly worded letter" protesting the verdict.  

Well boo-hoo India. I haven't seen the incident, so I'm not in a good position to comment. I must admit the notion of someone elbowing another player sounds like reasonable grounds for a ban, but that completely aside, an appeal process has been conducted and the verdict upheld - is this not end of story?

I wonder if India's credibility to appeal is all that strong, they come across oftentimes as being a powerful cricketing board that accepts nothing less than getting their way. It smacks of audacity for them to even take this step of publicly and officially rejecting an ICC decision, and it concerns me that a board that is as powerful as it is, and commands so much commercial strength should take this aggressive stance rather than be a stalwart for the game.

It seems clear that BCCI's interests are purely their own, and more specifically that of making money, and not for the good of cricket. International cricket is worse off for having them with that attitude.

Scarily enough, this is not the first time that the BCCI have been so belligerent that they would reject the banning of a player - back in 2001 the 3rd test against South Africa was declared unofficial after the Indian's "rejected" the ban imposed on Virender Sehwag for excessive appealing.

India need to learn to cop it sweet. When it comes to cricket, the only time they should have a cry is it they get slapped in the face - and even then they should learn to grow some balls.


No comments: