Stand By Your Boys, Mr Dalmiya

The verdict is out and there is no appeal against it. The Indians havebrought disrepute to the game of gentlemen. Or so ICC match referee MikeDenness would have us believe.

Sachin Tendulkar has been found guilty of tampering with the ball and forbringing disrepute to the game, has been fined 75 per cent of his matchfees. Tendulkar has also been given a one Test suspended sentence. VirendraSehwag, Harbhajan Singh, Deep Dasgupta and Shiv Sundar Das have all beenheld guilty of attempting to influence the umpire's decision, andattempting to influence the umpire by charging towards him. All have been fined 75per cent of their match fees, and have been given a suspended one Test ban,which can be enforced in case of any other violation till January 2002.

Sehwag has been penalised for a breach of conduct for similar offences,fined 75 per cent of his match fees, and suspended for one Test withimmediate effect. Skipper Saurav Ganguly has been fined 75 per cent of hismatch fees for bringing the game into disrepute, and has been given asuspended ban of one Test plus a fine of 75 per cent of the match fees.

Denness, who was present at the official Press conference today, refused toeither explain the decisions, or to answer any questions. Ravi Shastri saidit best. 'If Denness won't answer questions, what is he doing here? We allknow what he looks like.' It was also categorically stated that Indiacannot appeal the decision.

The Laws of Cricket code - Law 42, covering fair and unfair play are veryclear:

(a) Any fielder may

1. polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
   
   
2. remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire (Pat Symcox who was commentating at the time, felt that Tendulkar was merely cleaning mud off the seam. But since he was not doing it under the supervision of the umpire, he may have contravened this provision).
   
   
3. dry a wet ball on a towel
   

(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason,interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use anyimplement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter thecondition of the ball, except as permitted in (a) above."

A reason to tamper with the ball is to enable one to generate prodiguousmovement and swing.

Further, as per the ICC's rulebook, Law 5, governing Test-Playing Conditionsreads, in relevant part, thus: 'The umpires shall retain possession of thematch balls throughout the duration of the match when play is not actuallytaking place. During play umpires shall periodically and irregularlyinspect the condition of the ball and shall retain possession of it at thefall of a wicket, a drinks interval, at the end of every over, or any otherdisruption in play.'

Neither of the umpires noticed any irregularity. And if at all the ball wastampered with, why did the umpires allow the Indian bowlers to continue touse it?

The so-called ball tampering incident was brought to Denness' notice by aTV producer of the local network while the rule book goes that only thefollowing can report such matters to the referee:

• The umpires, including the third or any further umpire appointed for a Test match or an ODI match.
  
  
• The team manager, either on his own behalf or on behalf of any of his players;
  
  
• The chief executive officer of the home board of a member country participating in a Test match or ODI match
  
  
• The ICC chief executive

If Denness indeed goes by the rules, then it would be interesting to havehis reaction to these points. Incidentally, Denness, who came to India asvice-captain to Tony Lewis in the 1974 series, did not like the country atall.

If the condemnation of Tendulkar -- a man who is eulogized world wide andhas played international cricket for 12 years without a blemish -- isridiculous, Sehwag's suspension for 'excessive appealing' defies logic. TheDelhi lad appealed on what he thought to be a genuine catch off the boot ofShaun Pollock. Even TV commentators said it was a good appeal instantly andthen said it was a good decision by umpire Russell Tiffin to rule thebatsmen not out after slow motion replays of the incident were shownrepeatedly.

It is the charge against captain Saurav Ganguly that really takes the cake.According to Denness, Ganguly could not control his team and in factindulged in excessive appealing and was found guilty. In the cut throatworld of competition where every inch is fought for, it is not unusual forpassions running high on the cricket field as well. Appealing by players isinstinctive and holding the skipper responsible is grossly unfair.

If excessive appealing is what Denness is seeking to curb then why did henot question the action of Pollock for literally demanding decisions in hisfavour through his sustained bellowing with arms raised towards the homeumpire after rapping Shiv Sunder Das and V.V.S. Laxman on the pads?

The Proteas' list of deeds or rather misdeeds during the ongoing Testseries does not end here. Sample the following:

• Nantie Hayward uses the 'F' word while bowling in the first Test at Bloemfontein.
  
  
• Jacques Kallis appeals 'excessively' after claiming a catch off a ball that had touched the turf in the first Test.
  
  
• Kallis bowls a grubber at first slip and then charges up to the batsman and shouts 'Let's see you hit that, you ********'
  
  
• Hayward, Pollock and Kallis heap abuses on Tendulkar and Sehwag when the two were trying to pull their side out of the woods in the first Test.
  
  
• Makhaya Ntini spits in Ganguly's direction in the same match.
  
  
• Pollock swears at Laxman in the on-going Test.

It is high time the BCCI showed some spine. For far too long have the Indiancricket authorities lumped down harsh penalties handed out to some of itstop players by ICC match referees without any protests.

The ICC officials continue to haul up Indian players for anything andeverything while players from other countries, notably the white nations,get away with things which are deemed generally to be far more serioustransgressions of Law 42 dealing with 'Fair and Unfair' play.

If the conduct of the South African players is not an eye-opener enoughthen the next incident that comes to the mind is West Indian Cammie Smithletting off Australian opener Michael Slater, during the Mumbai Test, formouthing obscenities.

The same Cammie Smith gave Ganguly the rough end of the stick for a muchless graver offence. The Indian skipper was forced to miss two ODIs in asubsequent series.

These mindless punishments are an insult to the Indian nation, whichprovides highest revenue to the ICC's coffers, the Indian public, the mostpassionate followers of the game and of course the cricketers, alreadyunder a lot of pressure because of their below-par performance.