Home > Cricket > The BCCI's gimmicks on the Harbhajan Singh affair could work against Indian cricket

The BCCI's gimmicks on the Harbhajan Singh affair could work against Indian cricket

A spat on the pitch has turned into an international crisis and the Indian board is milking the situation for what it can, a move that could be counter-productive for the team. Let's get things into some kind of perspective.

by vaibhav sharma on 10 January 2008

Email this Article (5) Comments

50%

Harbhajan and Symonds: Crisis out of drama? (gettyimages.com)

Related Bet:

Free £10 bet when you register at

Related Events:

Submit this article to Punditit

With all the problems down under, it might be the Indian players who end up paying for the BCCI’s antics.

To say that the recent India-Australia controversy has turned into a blot for world cricket is fast becoming a cliché. What started of as a verbal spat on the field is becoming a prestige issue for those who presume to run world cricket and those who actually do.

The BCCI claim that forcing Steve Bucknor down for the Perth Test, along with Harbhajan Singh's ban suspension, is a victory for cricket. How and why? Nobody could care less. Instead of giving straightforward demands on the poor standard of umpiring and the allegation on Harbhajan, the BCCI decided what the whole world knew. They would challenge the ban and ask for Bucknor to be rested from Perth.

'What started of as a verbal spat on the field is becoming a prestige issue for those who presume to run world cricket and those who actually do'

And keeping its image as cricket’s governing body the ICC didn’t do away with Hartbhajan's three-Test ban, they simply just suspended it. So much reaction to such trivial issues that cricket and gentlemen just don’t seem to be inhabitants of the same planet.

In all the mess the one striking thing hard to get over is that Bucknor got so much stick for bad decisions, while BNJ Oxenford, the third umpire who has access to eight angles of a dismissal ruled Andrew Symonds not out on a clear stumping.

And that is not the worst part. 'Slow Death' Bucknor has been made a convenient scapegoat. This issue is not a personal one between Test-playing nation and an umpire, it is about understanding that umpiring is as tough a job as playing Brett Lee without pads.

India would never have called off the tour - the cash-hungry board can’t afford it. The BCCI should have handled the issue better rather than getting embroiled in the debate as to whether ‘monkey’ is a racist word.

Yes, standards of umpiring have to be monitored and the old chestnut of technology to help umpires is again relevant. India wasn’t looking for sympathy, but they got it and the BCCI made full use of it.

But now we are reaching the point where the pride of a nation is at stake. Any more gimmicks and the wave of sympathy may work against Anil Kumble and his players on the field.

Comments (5)

by an indian on January 10, 2008

r u indian? if yes, r u an idiot?? its the players that matter,not the board or the media...and the players have done and said all the right things.

by aussie cricket lover on January 10, 2008

It seems to me that umpiring disputes cause ongoing frustration to players in both teams. Maybe the time has come for cricket to adopt a similar rule to the "3 challenges" rule already in use in tennis. It could work like this... Each team has 3 challenges per innings. If a batsman has been given out by the umpire and he thinks he was not out, the batsman could use 1 of the 3 "team" challenges. At this point, the 2 onfield umpires and the 3rd umpire would review the television footage on the big screen and after 3 or 4 repeats of the footage each would press a red or green button to signal their opinion of OUT or NOT OUT - majority decision would apply. Similarly, if the fielding team wanted to challenge a NOT OUT decision, the fielding captain could use 1 of his 3 team challenges. The same review and ruling process would apply. After 3 challenges in an innings there are no more challenges allowed. This would eliminate silly challenges. This approach would minimise poor umpiring decisions having a major i

by Chris Hockman on January 12, 2008

[quote]r u indian? if yes, r u an idiot?? its the players that matter,not the board or the media...and the players have done and said all the right things.[/quote] Hmmm I think he actually raises a good point, I'm sure the board would WANT you to think that it's the ploayers that matter but it's not it's money. The fact that the Indians have regularly changed their story about this whole affair gives me some doubts, there are some good articles around the site at the moment about India's hypcracy and attempts to control the game of Cricket. In all this remember, even if Sydney was a draw India would need to win both remaining tests to get the trophy back, and with the way India play (slow, boring cricket) I can't see that happening.

by greatrr on January 15, 2008

BTW Tony greig raised a point during the last day of the Sydney test. What did Symonds say to bhajji before he allegedly being called monkey? Did ICC dig into that? or even for that aussie media talk about it? Spineless guys sledge on the ground and claim fair and hard play, sadly they even twisted the umpires and got 7 decisions in their favour which were otherwise not.