I watched in disbelief as the headline ran across the BBC news ticker. India had suspended the tour to Australia, right smack in the middle of things, because they did not fancy a decision made by the match referee on Harbhajan Singh following the controversial second Test.

Now let it be said first and foremost, that if the Indian bowler is guilty of the things he has been accused of, then he should be punished. There is no space in this world for racism on whatever level and least of all in the gentleman's game.

That having been said, if he didn't then the shame should be on the Australian team for bringing the Indian team into disrepute. Accusations of so serious a nature have far-reaching consequences on the various stakeholders of the game.

'Australia's style of play is borderline barbarian, where all the virtues of the game are put aside for the sake of win'

In view of the foregoing, the ICC's first action was legitimate and should have stood. That was the action that was taken based on the action. If there was insufficient evidence, wrong as it might have been, then there would have been no conviction.

The fact that India then proceeded to hold the game to ransom is a dangerous precedent. They added the very average decisions by the umpire to the mix, an umpire who simply had a poor game. Before that he had been very good at his decision-making. The ICC stood by their man for just 24 hours and then did an about-turn and brought the comical Billy Bowden on board.

That set a dangerous precedent for the game. What happens when Zimbabwe are playing Ireland at the World Cup and Tinashe Panyangara is incensed that the umpire missed an edge? The dressing room decides that it is unacceptable and then every one toddles off and calls the umpire all types of names short of unflattering references to their mothers. And the logic? If the bigger boys, in this case India, can get away with it then why can't we?