“Sometimes some chronic cases feel that they are bigger than the game” -- Arjuna

Former Sri Lanka skipper Arjuna Ranatunge who is an ardent critic of the Australian umpire Darrell Hair is also of the view that the forfeiture that has been in the custody of the umpires for the past 300 hundred years should be shifted to the care of the match referees.

He said “I feel that the match referees appointed by the ICC have played the game at the highest level and they have a good insight into the game. At times chronic people like Darrell Hair who think that they are bigger than the game come along and make a mess of it. For instance on that day at the Oval there were 20,000 people and some million other viewers the world over watching the match and the last thing they wanted was an umpire to call off the match.”

“At the same time I feel that the Pakistan Captain Inzamam-ul-Haq made a mistake that day. He should not have let the umpires change the ball at that juncture and should have continued playing the same ball. All-in-all I feel changes like this should be introduced to the game, just for the good of the game”.

This reaction came in the aftermath of the ICC rejecting an appeal made by the Sri Lankan and Indian cricket boards to transfer the power of the umpires of their right to forfeit matches to the custody of the match referees.

In reaction to this appeal the ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed went on record saying “One thing that we need to bear in mind is on-field decisions have been made by the umpires for the past 300 years. That is one of the features of the game which has well and truly stood the test of time.

“I think the ICC executive board would be cautious in seeking to change the powers given to the umpires and vested with them for the past 300 years.”

The same news report filed by Reuters said – The Sri Lankan and Indian Cricket Boards have urged the ICC to transfer the power of umpires to rule on forfeiture to the match referee or ICC.

Sri Lanka Cricket’s Interim Committee Chairman Jayantha Dharmadasa did not agree with the wording of the report. He said “It’s not right to say that we urged them to change the rule. It was only a request made by the two countries’ Cricket Boards to that effect. However we could not meet to discuss the issue as the ICC cancelled the meeting of the executive committee which was scheduled for the 2nd of September. However we feel that not only Sri Lanka and India but a lot more countries have arrived at the same conclusion. Nevertheless first the ICC executive committee has to meet and discuss the issue before arriving at a decision.”Now that the peers of the game have given us their ideas on the issue now let us do our own musing. Don’t you think that the ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed is taking an “Koheda Yanne Malle Pol” attitude. He goes into raptures about the preservation of the rights of the umpires who made ‘on field decisions for the past 300 hundred years. Well, now sir, who is talking about taking all the laws off their hands and piling them on the match referee. Don’t you think it’s a little absurd to imagine a match referee lifting the finger from his cubical in the pavilion?

This request made by the two countries were based on a specific issue which many feel could have been handled better by a person with more stature and on-field insight into the game at that level.

From the time that fateful incident marred the entire image of cricket in the post tea session of the fourth-day of the third Test between England and Pakistan at the Oval, it seems that the ICC is taking a ‘dog in the manger’ attitude towards the issue. On one hand they have cautioned the Pakistani team and officialdom against making statements on the issue and then make public statements to the effect that they are even looking at getting forensic evidence to prove that the ball has been tampered with in spite of there being no apparent evidence on any mishandling of the ball on the TV clips.

However Speed has denied that there were any ulterior motives behind forensic tests which may be used to ensure a fair hearing for all parties.

He has gone on record saying "We want a fair hearing," saying: "We don't want to sit on the side of the umpires. We don't want to sit on the side of the team.” Nonetheless when you read between the lines there is a sinister stench emanating.

Now the biggest day of cricket judgment has been fixed for 27 and 28th of September with Ranjan Madugalle of Sri Lanka at the helm.

What will happen on that fateful day, will indeed have a distinct bearing on the future of cricket! Had the Pakistan skipper and his team brought disrepute to the game? Had the Pakistan team tampered with the ball?

At the same time why not try ascertaining if the two umpires who officiated were the ones who brought disrepute to the game? That will be an interesting aspect to explore, don’t you think?

PS: When it was shown that the Pakistani bowler Sohaib Aktar was doing something with the ball the same match referee Mike Proctor opted to give it a miss. Then there was some onscreen evidence. At the Test match there was no evidence and then forensic ‘sic’ isn’t it?