Tony Becca, FROM THE BOUNDARY THE SECOND Test between Australia and India ended in Sydney last Sunday in an exciting finish with just seven deliveries to go.
However, it will not be remembered for the fairytale efforts of part-time bowler Michael Clarke, who picked up three wickets in the penultimate over, but rather for the umpiring mistakes, the eventual sacking of umpire Steve Bucknor and the banning of India's Harbhajan Singh for three Test matches.
Change in stance
Although the umpiring was terrible, it is strange that the International Cricket Council (ICC) - the usually conservative ICC, the ICC that always defends its umpires and the ICC that in the past refused to remove and to replace umpires - should remove and replace Bucknor for the third Test.
Remembering the many com-plaints against umpires and umpiring in the past; remembering, as president Julian Hunte has reminded, that the West Indies complained about the standard of umpiring during their tour of Australia in 2005 and were told, by the ICC, that nothing could be done about it, one is left to wonder if there are different types of justice in the world of cricket - one for the blacks and one for the whites, especially so one for the poor in cricket and one for the rich in cricket.
In the past, the ICC defended its stance in not removing and replacing umpires who made mistakes and they did so on the basis that it would be setting a precedent - that it would be opening the door for every loser to cry foul and to demand a change in officials.
All of a sudden, however, the ICC has changed its stance. This time around, the ICC has said that the decision to remove and to replace an umpire, to remove and replace its most senior umpire, is in the best interest of the game.
All of a sudden, the removal and replacement of an umpire is not setting precedence; all of a sudden it is in the best interest of cricket.
"It is important to stress that Steve has not been replaced due to any representations made by any team or individuals," said ICC chief executive officer, Malcolm Speed. "The ICC remains the sole body responsible for the appoint-ment of umpires and no team has the right to object to any appoint-ment. The decision by the ICC to replace Steve for this match was made in the nest interests of the game and the series."
I sincerely hope that Speed really believes that - especially as I am almost positive that Bucknor does not.
Bucknor and Mark Benson did not make a few mistakes: they made many mistakes and there can be no questioning that.
Image of the game
To be fair to the ICC, however, based on the tension between the two teams and especially so the anger of the Indians, it had to do something to protect the third Test - to protect the image of the game.
Instead of going against its principles, however, instead of saying, tongue in cheek, that it was acting in the best interest of the game, instead of really setting a precedence which it may well regret, all the ICC had to do, and especially so if it did not wish to be seen as a set of hypocrites catering, this time around, to its richest member, was to sit the two captains down before the third Test, remind them that, right or wrong and according to its dictate, the umpires decision is final, tell them to go and play the game, and then, hopefully, deal with Bucknor, and also Benson, afterwards.
That, however, was not the only fishy thing in Sydney. There was also the banning of Harbhajan Singh for a breach of level three of the ICC's Code of Conduct.
There is no place in sport, in cricket, for racial slurs, and regardless of the circumstances, if Harbhajan did call Andrew Symonds a monkey, he deserves to be punished.
Questions to answer
Apart from the rush in dealing with Harbhajan and the delay in dealing with Australian Brad Hogg who has been reported for breaches under the same code of conduct, there are, however, two questions which match referee Mike Procter, the man who chaired the hearing on Harbhajan and who handed down the sentence, should answer.
Question number one is this: Did Symonds say anything to irritate Harbhajan and, if so, what did he say?
Question number two is this: Did any one on the field hear anything concerning what was reported?
According to Symonds himself, he saw Harbhajan 'hit' Brett Lee on his buttocks with his bat after completing a run. He did not like it, and with Australians always defending Australians, as an Australian he decided to defend his colleague and he had some words with Harbhajan.
Based on what I have seen on cricket fields around the world, based on the fact that many players always touch each other on the buttocks in a friendly gesture or while encouraging them, unless it was an aggressive move by Harbhajan, that hardly seems reason for a confrontation.
According to captain Ricky Ponting (who was fielding in the slips), according to Adam Gilchrist (who was the wicketkeeper), according to Sachin Tendulkar (who was batting with Harbhajan), and according to umpires Bucknor and Benson, they did not hear and did not see anything between Harbahjan and Symonds, and according to Procter, there was no record, visual or audio, of the incident.
According to Bucknor and Benson, the first time they knew about any incident taking place was when Ponting reported it to them.
Apart from the problem of what Symonds said to Harbhajan - if indeed he did say anything - it all came down to Symonds' word against Harbhajan's word.
It is strange that Procter, the man who was the match referee at The Oval in 2006 during the abandoned Test match between England and Pakistan, the match referee who is known to do nothing when things are happening around him, could, after eight hours of evidence and contemplation, rule against Singh and then say "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin".
Procter also said after the hearing, "I believe that one group was telling the truth".
It does not take a genius to work out which group, according to Procter, was telling the truth and, obviously, which one was telling lies.
After the fireworks in Sydney, Bucknor was removed and replaced, and Harbhajan was banned for three Test matches.
One who got away
There was one, however, who got away. Apart from those who appealed for catches when the bat had not touched the ball or when the ball had touched the ground, there was one, with his champion team in trouble, who touched the ball, stood his ground and waited for the umpire's decision, and when the umpire ruled him not out, went on to bat undefeated to the end of the innings.
He then, boldly and without remorse, told the media, for all the world to hear, that he had cheated - that he had hit the ball.
The world of cricket is not fair - not when a man is embarrassed because he makes a few mistakes, and not when a man is embarrassed on the word of another man.
Not when a man who is clearly out caught, continues batting, tells the world he knew he was out, and gets away, not only without even a rap on his knuckles, not only with his teammates supporting him, but also with the chief executive officer of Cricket Australia defending him on the basis that "Test cricket is what is being played here, it's not tiddlywinks", that "the Australian cricket team plays the game tough, tough and uncompromising", that "it's the way Australian cricket teams have played the game since 1877", and that "that is the way Australians have expected their teams to play".
