Different rules for different teams?

Deness
By Anil - 11 Nov, '02
November 11 2002

Mike Deness, the controversial ex-referee who was banned by India from officiating in the third Test between India and South Africa at Centurion Park after handing down outrageously biased decisions in the second Test, has yet to be disciplined by the ICC. Would he have penalized the Aussies?

The Australian team, in their first Test against England in their "Ashes" series, have shown why Deness's actions were biased in the extreme.

Although Deness begged out of an ICC hearing several months back in front of an ICC council composed of 3 judges approved by the Indian board, by claiming that he was suffering from heart trouble at the time, inquiring minds want to know why he still remains at large, unpunished for his unlawful judgments against more than half the Indian team (6 players) with multiple bans and fines.

The ICC, in the form of Australians Malcom Gray and Malcom Speed, have been steadfast in their support of Deness. They have also let his judgments stand, and hence bans and fines still stain the records of 6 fine cricketers because of the actions of a prejudiced official. This stigma, and the fact that Deness roams free, still rankles with Indian supporters as much as ever. The Aussies who run the ICC have not explained why they have been tardy with the agreed upon resolution for this vexed issue.

Meanwhile, those who have been watching the just-concluded first Test in Brisbane between Australia and England will have noticed several interesting actions in the field from the fired-up Aussies:

• Darren Lehmann was caught on film running his nails down the seam in much the same way that motivated Deness to punish Sachin Tendulkar, in the first over after lunch on the third day of the Test. West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor had a quick word with him in the next over after he saw this on the big screen. And that was the end of that. These events have been captured on tape.
• The second over after lunch on the same day bowled by Warne saw a ripping leg break to Hussain that was caught in the slips. The slips charged the umpire with a ferocious appeal, even as Warne himself started celebrations without bothering to look back at the umpire. Compare this to anything the Indian team had done on that fateful day in Port Elizabeth which was used as an excuse by Deness for his trumped-up charges.
• Later, Hussain was again involved in a caught-behind appeal off Gillespie, and the slips as well as the bowler repeated the now-familiar enthusiastic Aussie pattern of aggressive charging at the umpire and overappealing.

The evidence above, which can be played back and compared with the behavior of the Indian team in Port Elizabeth, would prove conclusively to any unbiased judge that the same rules are being applied differently to different teams.

What prevents the ICC from acknowledging and correcting this? Indeed, what prevents the Indian board from using this evidence to take legal action against the ICC? Or is such action left to the ICPA (Indian Cricket Players Association)?

Whatever the case, it needs to be acknowledged once and for all by the ICC that Deness's actions were wrong, and the affected players' records wiped clean. Enthusiasm in the field cannot be used by prejudiced officials to press their vendetta. And if they do so, an example should be made of them by punishing them openly and unambiguously.

Cleansing the game of biased officials is just as important, if not more so, than cleansing the game of match fixing.

It is critical that the ICC stop procrastinating and take conclusive action against Deness for the sake of cricket.