Former Pakistan skipper Intikhab Alam blames the ICC for triggering off the crisis by backing Mike Denness even if he seemed to be blatantly unfair and partisan.
Intikhab Alam played the game at the highest level in the '60sand '70s for Pakistan and for Surrey in county cricket. The former captain ofPakistan (1969-75) was a much celebrated coach and manager for the better of the'80s and '90s. The high point of his managerial stints were the '92 World Cuptriumph, and the series wins against England on their soil in 1992 and 1996.
Excerpts from the interview:
How do you maintain the consistency of rulings across match referees? Thesame test match in which Sachin Tendulkar was accused of ball tampering, Jacques Kallis, on thelast day, was also seen cleaning the ballwithout asking the umpire. On the same day, in the Australia-New Zealand test,Craig Macmillan was caught on TV doing the same. Let alonepunished, neither was even warned.
One cannot deny it that there've been cases of double standards, andaplenty. I can say without any fear of contradiction that with an odd exceptionor two, most referees have used their discretion while ruling on incidents andthere has been more than a bit of diversity.
I mean it was upto them to be lenient or strict. That they were actingaccording to who was involved, and not exactly following the merit and demands ofjustice in each case. I have seen it happening since 1992, on our tour ofEngland. Each incident has left a bad taste in the mouth.
Anyway, this whole saga involving Mike Denness and the six Indian players, andsubsequently the Indian and South African boards and the ICC could have easilybeen avoided. Denness went too far, on all counts. No way can picking the seamcan be called tampering with the condition of the ball.
As regards excessive appealing, first there should be a stern message, 'Cutit out'. It is irrelevant who does it, the umpires or the referee. And, trustme, that would have been the end of it. You cannot penalise half a team on suchcharges, and at the same time ignore the other side's transgressions.
Firstly, had Denness not gone overboard, there would've been no problem. Hadthe ICC later acted with calm authority and not turned it into a clash of egos,the issue could still have been resolved much more amicably. At a personallevel, I believe that the system of refereeing should be so aboveboard that itis not challenged by anybody. It can only happen when it is fair and unbiased.
Should there be a right of appeal against the match referee's decision?Cricketers seem to have no right of appeal at any level. Do we need a mechanism for appeal, and if so, how should itwork?
Sticking to the issue at hand, the problem started when the ICC decided toback its appointee even if he seemed to be blatantly unfair and partisan. Evenif there was no system of appeal at this particular point in time, the ICCshould have acted judiciously and not emotionally.
To me, this whole system of referees is flawed. Geoff Boycott has rightlycalled it a paid holiday for those close to the boards and the ICC. It's nothingmore than an old boys' network. Even if it was not, it is not the job of a matchreferee to issue reprimands, bans and fines on his own. His job is toadjudicate, and sort out the case presented to him. But lately we see thatreferees are acting as judge, jury and executioner. That too without anyuniformity and evenhandedness.
Coming to your question. Yes, there should be a mechanism for appeal, afterensuring that redress is sought only in grave cases. But anyone who feelswronged should be allowed to appeal; that is the demand of naturaljustice as well.
Shouldn't the match referee be allowed (or forced) to explain hisdecisions? Isn't this basic right toinformation being denied to the players and the public?
If you ask me personally, referees are taking themselves too importantly.That explains the strutting and throwing their weight around. To me, a refereeis a judge, and the judge's job is to provide relief to the wronged and admonish thewrongdoer.
It was supposed to be a benign system, much needed to cut out the rowdinessand to make the game smooth and presentable. What we are seeing is entirelydifferent -- the referees themselves are acting injudiciously and creatingconflagration.
I believe that the entire system has to be rethought, and yes, the refereesshould not be given immunity to explain as to how they reached a particulardecision. So that if they chose to make laughable and biased decisions, they aremade accountable at least to the media and public.
Do you feel important ICC decisions be taken by the president alone or throughproper consultations? As Boycott said on TV, the decision to term the third Testunofficial is wrongly being called the ICC's decision, it is actually one man'sdecision, Malcolm Gray's. Should not the ICC's technical committee, which looksafter discipline and rules issues, been consulted?
I think that any decision which is of serious a nature as withdrawal ofTest status should have unanimity and consensus, of the boards and the ICCcommittees involved. That is how you ensure transparency.
Should all decisions involving cricketing rules be decided by simplemajority in the ICC? If in the next ICC executive board meeting onMarch 16, Jagmohan Dalmiya forces a vote on the third test, gets amajority to vote for him and turns it into an official one, do you feel it is the correct way to do it?
I suppose the ICC meetings are not mere goodwill affairs, but meant to decidecritical issues. This split between the ICC and at least two member boards, withothers taking sides, is most crucial since Kerry Packer. The very authority ofthe highest cricketing establishment has been challenged.
It is important that all issues, and not just the status of the third Testbetween South Africa and India, are decided democratically. Ideally, it shouldbe consensus, with everybody thinking and acting the same way. But if that isnot possible, the majority should be allowed to hold sway, with those voted outtaking it with grace.
How can this crisis make cricket a fairer and better game?
This crisis was the last thing cricket needed right now. What is worseit has exposed the ICC as a body lagging far behind in terms of resolvingserious issues quickly and judiciously. The fallout has been tremendous, and ifthe ICC has to recover from this, it would have to resolve be a more judiciousand fair body.
In the context of BCCI and the Indian cricketers, the viewpoint all around,as far as I gather, is that they were wronged. In this environment, I sincerelyhope that the Indians do decide to carry on with the game and not prolong theissue. Even if they allow the ICC high-handedness by not playing Sehwag atMohali, they stand to lose nothing.
Do you think that the game is being divided along racial lines?
I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. But that feeling is there, and it isreally very sad. Injustice cannot continue for too long without anyrepercussions. All those who have been associated with the management of thisfair game have to sit down with a cool head and think how it came to that.