Skip to main content

ICC -- A bunch of jokers

Image
By Sans

Time and again International Cricket Council makes it a point to reveal its true glory to the millions of cricket fans around the world. Cricket administrators are usually politicians who don't make the cut in the political arena or they are failed lawyers who cannot win a decent case in a court of law for their clients.

After reading this report, you would start to wonder whether ICC is an administrative body or a club of a bunch of jokers.
Ponting hit by fine for dissent

Ricky Ponting has been fined his match fee for showing dissent at an umpire during Australia's 78-run one-day win over the West Indies in Kuala Lumpur. Ponting was charged by the umpires with breaching cricket's code of conduct relating to dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse.

The Aussie skipper pleaded guilty at a hearing led by match ref Chris Broad.

Broad said: "It is not acceptable for any player, let alone a captain, to question an umpire's decision."

It was Ponting's second dissent offence within the past year - the other was in April against Bangladesh during the second Test at Chittagong. The latest charge followed his reaction to the calling of a wide by umpire Asad Rauf in the 33rd over of West Indies' innings. Ponting walked up to Rauf to query the decision.

Dissent is unacceptable says ICC. That sort of a law is an ass. Malcolm Speed and Percy Sonn (two lawyers, ironically) who run ICC should know that there is nothing wrong with dissent as long as it is not violent or abusive.

A captain should be allowed to speak to the umpire. If Ponting insulted the umpire - then yes, by all means don't fine him, suspend him.

International Cricket is played by adults who are eligible to vote, perform a surgery, so on and so forth. To enforce a diktat that international cricketers should not disagree with the umpires is NONSENSE.

Dissent: the fact of having or expressing opinions that are different from those that are officially accepted. (In this case, umpire's decision is final!)

If a batsman is given out, and the captain of the fielding side calls him back, isn't that dissent too?

ICC has no f&%king clue about the world they live in.

What sort of a society wouldn't accept dissent? Chris Broad, the match referee, who says, "It is not acceptable for any player, let alone a captain, to question an umpire's decision."

Broad should throw away his British passport and take up an honorary citizenship in Saudi Arabia.

The right to dissent is the very essence of equality enshrined in democracy. If ICC and its officers like Broad keep behaving like feudal lords, then the real stakeholders of the game (the ones who play and watch it) should get rid of the ICC through democratic means.

All the ICC member countries (with the exception of Zimbabwe and Pakistan) have excellent democratic record. We shouldn't allow the existence of an anti-democratic institution within a democratic space.

It is a pity that some people think: enforcement of authority ensures respect.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arundhati Roy: The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture

By Sans
The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture delivered by Arundhati Roy, at the Seymour Theatre Centre, University of Sydney.

Peace & The New Corporate Liberation Theology

It's official now. The Sydney Peace Foundation is neck deep in the business of gambling and calculated risk. Last year, very courageously, it chose Dr Hanan Ashrawi of Palestine for the Sydney Peace Prize. And, as if that were not enough, this year - of all the people in the world - it goes and chooses me!

However I'd like to make a complaint. My sources inform me that Dr Ashrawi had a picket all to herself. This is discriminatory. I demand equal treatment for all Peace Prizees. May I formally request the Foundation to organize a picket against me after the lecture? From what I've heard, it shouldn't be hard to organize. If this is insufficient notice, then tomorrow will suit me just as well.

When this year's Sydney Peace Prize was announced, I was subjected to some pretty arch remarks from those who k…
Post a Comment
Read more

Thirst for blood and oil

By Sans
There is a war going on in the Middle East; one in Iraq and the other in Lebanon. It is a war against innocent civilian population, played out by faceless enemies of humanity. Is it only a war in the name of religion, gods, and land? It is also a war in the name of black gold – OIL!

The United States and Britain are only too happy to occupy Iraq and see various parts of it blow up. Iraq's sin is that it has a lot of Oil. But, then, Iraqis are not enough educated and sophisticated people to understand that no one really cares about whether it is Shia oil or Sunni oil. It is a crying shame that Iraqis kill each other in the name of the two factions of Islam – again their only reason for killing is to set the supremacy – and to gain power. Saddam knew too well that Oil was more powerful than anything else in today's world. And Oil is the very reason why he was toppled and put behind bars. It wasn't Saddam's Human Rights violations that the Western governments were too con…
Post a Comment
Read more

Where the People Voted Against Fear

By Sans
by Eduardo Galeano; Inter Press Service; November 18, 2004

A few days before the election of the President of the planet in North America, in South America elections and a plebiscite were held in a little-known, almost secret country called Uruguay. In these elections, for the first time in the country's history, the left won. And in the plebiscite, for the first time in world history, the privatization of water was rejected by popular vote, asserting that water is the right of all people.



* * *

The movement headed by President-elect Tabare Vazquez ended the monopoly of the two traditional parties--the Blanco and the Colorado parties--which governed Uruguay since the creation of the universe.

And after each election you would hear this exclamation: 'I thought that we Blancos won but it turns out we Colorados did"--or the other way around. Out of opportunism, yes, but also because after so many years of ruling together, the two parties had fused into one, disguised as two.

…
Post a Comment
Read more