The final match of the ICC World Twenty20 is on today. It is Pakistan versus Sri Lanka, and although the West Indies failed to make it to the final after a disappointing performance against Sri Lanka in the semi-finals on Friday, they played well up to then, and West Indians, all around the globe, should be happy.

In Jamaica, however, it has been quite a different story - off the field, and on it.

In the past week or so, Jamaica's cricket has taken some serious blows from some serious actions, first by the Jamaica Cricket Association (JCA), which made an unpopular ruling, and then, obviously in reaction to that ruling, by teams involved in the JCA's top competition.

Breaking the rules

During the season, from the very first match in the competition, Manchester used a player who was not transferred to them. The matter was reported to the association's competition and complaints committee and to Manchester. No decision was taken, or rather, a recommendation was not passed to the association, until two Tuesdays ago, after the sixth round of the competition when, with one round to go, leaders, Manchester, were scheduled to play last-place Hanover and second-place Melbourne were set to take on third-place and defending champions, St Catherine.

After finding Manchester guilty of breaking the rules, the JCA decided on the Tuesday before last weekend's final round of matches, not to deduct points from them, but to fine them $300,000.

On Saturday at Chedwin Park, in the match between St Catherine and Melbourne, top-order batsmen on both sides batted at numbers nine and 10, national fast bowlers bowled slow, national slow bowlers bowled fast, national bowlers on both sides did not even bowl one delivery, a national slow bowler kept wicket, right-handed batsmen batted left-handed, and a host of batsmen were stumped - including one who believed he was stumped, walked away, and was called back by the square-leg umpire, Melbourne won the "match" at 4.10 in the afternoon to finish on 27 points.

On Saturday at Jarrett Park, in the match between Hanover and Manchester, Hanover were dismissed for 16 in 9.4 overs. Manchester cruised to 68 for two when rain interfered and stopped play for the day. Manchester declared their first innings closed first thing on Sunday, and Hanover were removed for 32, to give Manchester victory by an innings and 20 runs.

Regardless of which teams made the first move, and based on the facts that both matches started at the same time, that St Catherine made 151 in their first innings, and that Hanover made 16 in under 10 overs in batting first, it appears that it was either Hanover or Manchester. It was a dark, black, and sad day for Jamaica's cricket. It simply was not cricket. It was an embarrassment to the game, and the teams should pay the price.

Melbourne and St Catherine, the two teams which had a chance of winning the competition, had every right to protest, and in a civilised society, no one can question that.

Protests, however, come in different forms, and the protests over the weekend were against civil behaviour and totally against the ideals of the game.

There is one question, however, and it is this: should the Jamaica Cricket Association be allowed to get away with a ruling that, even though it may be legal, went against the grain, one that went against normal procedures, and one that made a team profit from breaking the rules?

In its defence rather than, as has happened so many times in the past, taking away points, the JCA has talked about its rules.

JCA legally correct

The rules of the JCA dealing with registration state: "The transfer is completed on or before the closing date of the second transfer window to be implemented by the Jamaica Cricket Association", and that should any club/parish be found guilty of a breach of this rule, then such a club/parish shall suffer a loss of any points gained in the match in which the breach was committed and or may be fined."

Based on its rules, the JCA may be legally correct.

I believe, however, that apart from the many things that are being whispered, things, such as the failure of the association's members to act when they should have acted, the ruling to fine rather than to deduct points stems from a decision to protect itself.

This belief is founded on issues highlighted in the association's release on the matter, some of which are as follows:

The approved transfer window was April 1-9. Teams were advised of this window and a reminder sent to the clubs and parishes on April 8.

The player involved, Maurice Kepple, represented Manchester in the first match of the season on April 18 and 19 against Kingston CC. The cricket operations office of the JCA noted that Kepple had appeared for Manchester, although he was not on the transfer list. The office notified the competitions and complaints committee, as well as Manchester, of that fact.

The JCA received a loan transfer from Manchester on May 1. The JCA competitions and complaints committee met on May 13. A representative of Manchester told the meeting that the president of the club from which Kepple was coming, Kensington, had promised to sign the transfer. On May 15, the chairman of the competition and complaints committee advised the JCA that "the registration has been deemed complete, as there is no clear evidence of the deadline being exceeded".

Apart from the fact that Manchester had said that the Kensington president had "promised" to sign the transfer and not that he had signed the transfer, the JCA's release, however, went on to say: "Transfer is deemed completed after all parties have signed and submitted to JCA Cricket Operations within the prescribed time. Subsequent information has confirmed that the transfer application was received on May 1, 2009, and as such, would be deemed to be outside of the transfer window."

In the release, the JCA also stated the recommendations of its executive to its board.

The recommendations were that Manchester be fined $300,000 and be "informed that Mr Maurice Kepple is not a duly transferred and registered player for Manchester and, consequently, is not eligible to represent Manchester in any JCA-run competition until he is so duly and effectively transferred and registered to Manchester".

What is even more interesting is the basis for the recommendation as stated in the same JCA release.

Basis of the recommendation

"Manchester was fully aware of the breach but continued to play the individual. There is no evidence to suggest that Manchester had any dishonourable motive to play the individual. The legal advice informed that it was not prudent at this time, given the delay in arriving at, and communicating, a ruling on the matter, for points to be deducted. The interpretation of the JCA's Rules and Regulations on Player Registration and Eligibility allowed a fine-only penalty. A mark of $50,000 for every match the individual played in was deemed adequate and reasonable, thus, with Mr Kepple having played in six matches, a fine of $300,000 was imposed."

I am positive that not every member of the JCA agreed with a fine instead of a deduction of points but decided to go along. I am sure that some members of the JCA, understandably so, agreed to the fine only because it took so long, just before the final round of the competition, to make a decision, or to submit a decision, and they did not want to appear to be "robbing" Manchester of the title.

I believe so based on the section of the basis for the recommendation that states that "the legal advice informed that it was not prudent at this time, given the delay in arriving at, and communicating, a ruling on the matter, for points to be deducted", and that "the interpretation of the Rule and Regulations on Player Registration and Eligibility allowed a fine-only penalty".

The JCA's decision seems to be one that served its own interests - not those of the other seven teams in the competition, and although they broke the rules, Manchester have benefited.

Ineligible player

Manchester, who played an ineligible player for six matches, won one million dollars, and although they have been asked to pay over $300,000, they will get, according to the JCA, the title and $700,000.

That's not bad at all.

The JCA - the body which runs cricket in Jamaica, the body which took two months to decide whether a player had been transferred or not, or rather, whether he should be allowed to play or not, and the body which, with a few days to go before the end of the competition, fined a club for breaking the rules for playing a player who "is not duly transferred and registered", and banned him from the following match, the last of the season against the weakest team in the competition, "until he is duly and effectively transferred and registered to Manchester" - is $300,000 richer.

Things may not have ended so embarrassingly had the JCA acted quicker. Had the JCA decided after round one or even round two only to fine Manchester, released its decision, and forced the parish to abide by the rules, the reaction of the clubs might have been different.

A quick and early decision, on any thing, in cricket, however, would be surprising, and especially so in West Indies cricket at any level.

What would not be surprising, however, is if next year, based on what happened this year, a team, any team, in its hunt to win the title and some money, were to bring in a player or two, at any time, and ignored the organisers of the competition, knowing that the "punishment" would be a fine of a few dollars.

What's a fine compared to the bulk of the prize money and the title?