India to lodge appeal and complaint

A Test match that offered one of the most thrilling, edge-of-the-seat, nail-biting finishes since Edgbaston 2005 is going to be remembered for controversy about umpiring, alleged racial abuse, and whether not walking when you know you nicked it is cheating. After the events of 2006 (England v Pakistan at the Oval) and 2007 (Fredalo, Bob Woolmer's death and the farcical umpiring at the end of the World Cup), one would have thought that International Cricket collectively would have thought that 2008 would be a good place to start afresh and hit headlines and news bulletins for the right reasons.

Well no - not to be. Today we have the unedifying news that the Indian team has refused to leave Sydney for Canberra (where they are due to play a between-Tests match) and that they are threatening to pull out of the rest of the tour. While it is a fine sight to see a team standing together (and too often in the past that has not been the case with India), and there are certainly plenty of reasons for them to be unhappy, to jeopardize the tour in this way is not professional or playing fair to the thousands of fans of both sides who are mostly interested in seeing high-class international cricket.

It is probably fair to say that tension has been building between Australia and India since the Aussies last set foot on the Subcontinent, but the way the issues of the Sydney Test have played out almost defy belief. Harbhajan Singh (described offensively by Peter Roebuck in the Aussie press as "an intemperate Sikh") allegedy racially taunted Andrew Symonds (described by some as "cheating" for not walking when plainly out), is given a three-match ban by match referee Mike Procter ("I'm a South African, and I understand the word racism"). This after a report by Ponting and a hearing that - we are told - included no stump-mike or third-party evidence. One man's word against another, both backed up by team-mates. He said something nasty, says one side; no he didn't, says the other side. Given what effect the slur of being branded a racist would have on anyone, it seems reasonable for Harbhajan and his team to appeal this verdict.

As far as the complaint against "incompetent umpires" that India are lodging with the ICC goes - this also seems fair and reasonable. Anyone following the course of this Second Test, via any media, will be aware that there were an unacceptable level of absolute shockers and they did go the way of the Australians. The win-at-all-costs approach of the Aussie team has much to be admired. Guts, determination and never-say-die are qualities that, of late, are very much missing in the England side, but it can go too far. Ponting's claiming of a catch over which he had very much less than full control is one case as is the over-the-top theatrical appealing by Gilchrist (normally a very controlled character) to have Rahul Dravid caught behind.

I doubt, however, whether so much would have been made about either the umpiring or the unsavoury behaviour of the conquering Australians had not the issue of racially focussed sledging been brought into play. Naturally racism of any ilk, in any walk of life including sport should be outlawed and punished, severely. To allow an incident to be brushed under the carpet would be outrageous, but here we seem to be dealing with something that is only proven on the belief of one man's word against another. It doesn't seem to quite add up properly to me and for probably the first time in my life I find myself agreeing with Simon Barnes of the Times who wrote today:

"I am not defending the Indians, or any other bit of sledging, it's just that cricket would be a better game if the Australians had never invented it [sledging]."

[Image: Getty] [mimitig]