"Only" cricket?

IN Opinion | 29/08/2006

You don`t say! 

Darius Nakoonwala

There are some topics that really get leader writers going. One of them is cricket; another is racism. The two together are leader writers` dream. In a rare occurrence, Inzamam ul-Haq, Pakistan`s cricket captain and Darrell Hair, an Australian umpire provided just the right mix on August 18. The result was editorial garrulousness of a very high order.

The Business Standard was the only one to suggest a practical solution while the others waffled. "The correct question is how to correct umpiring errors…. the issue involves challenging the absolute nature of the umpire`s authority by means that do not reduce his effectiveness… The answer lies in a provision for appeal, as also very strong standards of proof. Technology provides the solution for certain types of mistakes, but not for other types. This is the problem that the ICC has to deal with…"

The Hindu wasted most of the edit on recapitulating what everyone knew. It then blamed the ICC, Inzamam and the umpires. It had absolutely nothing practical to offer because it did not diagnose the problem correctly, namely, as the absolute authority of the umpire. On racism, it copped out saying that Billy Doctrove from the West Indies was a party to the decision to have Pakistan forfeit the match.

The Indian Express blamed only Pakistan, which suggests a lack of application on the part of the leader writer. "When they eventually tire of venting protestations of civilisational hurt... if they had just kept their wits and played on, the fourth Test would have been theirs... By the actions of Pakistan`s cricketers and confrontational managers, one of the game`s most sacred compacts has been broken: the undertaking of players to abide by the umpire`s directions."

The Pioneer`s writer also went into the history of confrontations in cricket because he had no clue as to what the problem is that leads to these umpire-team stand-offs. About Hair it got it right though. "In short, Hair`s is not a presence on the pitch that automatically inspires a great deal of confidence among cricketers from the Indian subcontinent. "

The Deccan Herald wasn`t much better. It was once again a recap and recount edit, while blaming both sides. Thus "Hair could have done his bit by speaking to Inzamam, and warning him if necessary, before applying the penalty…" and "the Pakistani players could have protested against the umpire`s decision but not turning up on the field after the tea-break was the wrong way to go about it." Note, no diagnosis, no solution.

The Telegraph turned philosophical and waxed eloquent about the notion of fair play.  Then, based on this, it took Hair`s side that he was only applying the rules, without which fair play is not possible. But what about fair play on the umpire`s side. On that it was content to remark " But the judges, too, must have impeccable records of fairness. That is a little more than can be said of Mr Hair. But it is useless to say of unfair play that it`s not cricket."

It then committed the final sacrilege by quoting and implicitly endorsing David Lloyd who said, ""For god`s sake, it`s only cricket." If it is "only" cricket, why bother to write an edit?

Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com