What a few weeks it was, after the fiasco at the Oval. Inzamam's appeal process, and the subsequent management of Darrell Hair by the ICC did not do the ICC any credit. First, the legal shenanigans carried out by the ICC and Malcolm Speed were just strange. Speed comes out and forbids anyone from making any comments and then goes ahead and gives a major press conference on the issue.
After that, credit needs to be given to the Pakistanis and Inzamam for being so accepting of the decision by the ICC to suspend Inzamam for four ODIs. Inzamam at no point found fault with the ICC's decision, and in fact was almost gracious as one would expect from such a senior player in the game. Like all adults and mature individuals, Inzamam had made a choice at the Oval, a choice based on principle and honour, and was willing to live with the consequences of having made that choice.
What was more concerning about the ICC, was the way they managed the Darrell Hair situation. Despite his willingness to take a payout (solicited or not, is another debate), and his actions which clearly bought
the game and the umpires into disrepute, the ICC fumbled around until November to dismiss him, and to find fault with his actions. Further, it took almost a rebellion from the Asian teams before the ICC even came out and said that Hair would not umpire in the Champion's Trophy. It clearly behooves the leadership of the ICC to conduct themselves in a far more reasonable and appropriate way, specially when dealing with matters of such sensitivity. There needs to be a clear understanding by the board of the ICC as to how these situations need to be dealt with in the future, and how charges of biases on the part of umpires are to be addressed.
After that, credit needs to be given to the Pakistanis and Inzamam for being so accepting of the decision by the ICC to suspend Inzamam for four ODIs. Inzamam at no point found fault with the ICC's decision, and in fact was almost gracious as one would expect from such a senior player in the game. Like all adults and mature individuals, Inzamam had made a choice at the Oval, a choice based on principle and honour, and was willing to live with the consequences of having made that choice.
What was more concerning about the ICC, was the way they managed the Darrell Hair situation. Despite his willingness to take a payout (solicited or not, is another debate), and his actions which clearly bought
the game and the umpires into disrepute, the ICC fumbled around until November to dismiss him, and to find fault with his actions. Further, it took almost a rebellion from the Asian teams before the ICC even came out and said that Hair would not umpire in the Champion's Trophy. It clearly behooves the leadership of the ICC to conduct themselves in a far more reasonable and appropriate way, specially when dealing with matters of such sensitivity. There needs to be a clear understanding by the board of the ICC as to how these situations need to be dealt with in the future, and how charges of biases on the part of umpires are to be addressed.
powered by performancing firefox
0 comments:
Post a Comment