Home > Cricket > One rule for Harbhajan Singh and another for Ricky Ponting?

One rule for Harbhajan Singh and another for Ricky Ponting?

Match referee Mike Procter was quick to ban Pakistan's captain for unfair play in 2003, so shouldn't he do the same with Michael Clarke and Ricky Ponting?

by Sidharth Bhan on 08 January 2008

Email this Article (9) Comments

50%

Michael Clarke: Unfair play? (gettyimages.com)

Related Bet:

Free £10 bet when you register at

Related Events:

Submit this article to Punditit

In my earlier post about events in Sydney [headlined Shame on Ricky Ponting, shame on Australia, shame on the ICC] – I pointed out the inequalities in the actions of the players and umpires and the ICC and how those who claim words are racist are forgetting the racist actions that speak much louder.

Did I forget the 15th player against India in this game – the match referee Mike Procter? The judge!

Back in 2003, this same gentleman, Mr Procter, decreed a five-match ban on one Rashid Latif, thus ending his career. The player was the captain of the Pakistani team at that time, playing versus Bangladesh.

‘... ignoring a similar unfair act by a white player while having decreed against an Asian player is also racism.’

After the third Test in Multan, Latif was banned from one-day internationals for unfair play, having claimed a catch whereas he had actually grounded the ball and never completed the catch. Fair and square. Well done Mr Procter.

Would someone remind the same Mr. Procter today about the numerous unfair claims made by the Australian team in this week's second Test – the catch by Michael Clarke for which 'fourth umpire' Ricky Ponting proclaimed the decision. Or the catch which Ponting himself claimed after grounding the ball – before going on to have the audacity to proclaim himself as the flag-bearer of integrity in the press conference after the game.

My dear Mr Procter, ignoring a similar unfair act by a white player while having decreed against an Asian player is also racism. How many years of ban do you recommend for your own acts?

Comments (9)

by Harry on January 08, 2008

The author of this article would do well to remember that Dhoni claimed a bump-ball catch of Kevin Pietersen in England in 2007. And that was resolved by the third umpire sending KP back ito the field of play after he was trudging back to the pavilion based on Dhoni's claim that he had caught it fair and square. The ICC should have suspensed Dhoni at the very least. I am Indian and I feel terrible that the sentiment on the street is deciding what is right. Our team is not filled to the brim with angels...remember South Africa and the suspensions meted out for excessive appealing and ball tampering by the omnipotent Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar!!

by Meiko on January 08, 2008

I agree with your comments Harry. Often India (and other teams) are no better. However, in this case, I believe that the Australian team's actions were unforgiveable and atrocious. Not to mention the ridiculous nature of the umpiring in the match. If Ponting were sacked, and the other offending players (Symonds, Clarke et al) dropped, I may be able to go back to supporting my country's team in peace. The team's actions in recent years (Ponting's outburst at Trent Bridge, the various racist remarks and vicious sledging and general bad sportsmanship), I fear that an Australian team I can be proud of is still distant.

by Raj on January 08, 2008

Double Standards of Mike Procter - Why Ponting is not banned ??? Double Standards of Mike Procter !!! Ponting stays because he is white !! Check the below article ! why Ponting is not banned for claiming catch of Sourav and Dhoni ?? Why Gilchrist stays for Dravid's catch ?? ----------------------------------------- Latif banned for five matches over disputed catch Wisden CricInfo staff September 7, 2003 Mike Procter announces the decision to the media © AFP Rashid Latif, Pakistan's captain, has been banned for five one-day internationals after being found guilty of violating the International Cricket Council's Code of Conduct during the third Test against Bangladesh at Multan. This means that Latif will miss the entire one-day series against Bangladesh. Inzamam-ul-Haq has been named captain in Latif's enforced absence. Kamran Akmal will keep wicket. Mike Procter, the match referee, upheld a complaint made by the Bangladesh team. Speaking at a press conference after the meeting

by raj on January 08, 2008

"As captain a lot of responsibility falls of Rashid Latif and he committed a serious offence by claiming that (unfair) catch which constitutes unfair play and a level-three offence of ICC code of conduct (offensive and penalties). Therefore, the Pakistani captain shall be banned for five one-day internationals," Procter said. "Latif has the right to appeal against the verdict." Latif believed that he had taken the catch cleanly. "If I had been convinced that I had not taken a clean catch and that the ball popped out of my gloves before I completed the catch motion, I would have called the batsman back," he said. "I dived, took the catch, rolled over and then just threw the ball to Inzamam." The Wisden Bulletin thought that the catch was dubious. "Was Latif in control of the ball for a sufficient length of time? Perhaps, but clause three of Law 32, which tries to define what constitutes a fair catch, states: `The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball a

by mick on January 09, 2008

Which catch are you saying was unfair? Clark took a fair catch...Maybe Gangully should be banned for dissent

by mike on January 09, 2008

Well, I'm a 72 year old Australian. I've seen a lot of cricket and a lot of fine players. And it pains me to say that I am disgusted with my team. Absolutely disgusted and even more so with Cricket Australia who have presided over the tarnishing of the game and my country's reputation.

by udai on January 09, 2008

Mick, did you see the match videos?? Clark clearly grassed the ball before standing up and throwing the ball into air with ecstacy unfairly claiming the catch..

by Chris on January 09, 2008

Udai, you cannot have been watching the 2nd. test from Sydney, or if you were you must be privy to footage of the Clark(e) catch that no one else is. The ball was not "clearly grassed". The agreement before the test series started was that batsmen would accept the word of the fielder who claims the catch. In the first innings Ponting looked to have caught Laxman (or it could have been Tendulker?), but told the batsman and umpire that he had not been able to jam his finger under the ball and therefore he was not claiming the catch. Ponting's action displayed sportsmanship.