Kohli vs Smith: How a spineless BCCI ditched Virat
After initially making perfunctory noises in support of Indian captain Virat Kohli in the “Cheatgate” controversy that rocked the Bangalore Test in the ongoing series, and then promising to protest against the International Cricket Council’s implicit conclusion that Kohli was as much to blame for it as the real offender, Australian captain Steven Smith, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has, in an astonishing turn-around, withdrawn its official complaint.
Spineless
It further removed from its website the entire video of the DRS incident, and also expunged an interview in which Ravichandran Ashwin likened the Australian shenanigans to the proceedings of an “Under-10” match. In effect, Cheatgate never happened!
However strenuously the BCCI might now project its spineless decision to compromise with Cricket Australia (CA) and the ICC as an act of sagacity — by getting a pliant section of the Indian media to report that its officials “deserve a pat on the back for diffusing the crisis and for handling the sensitive issue in this manner” — no right-thinking follower of the game will forgive BCCI for leaving the Indian captain in a veritable lurch.
Instead, Kohli might well find himself inundated with sympathy if he decides not to participate in the sham “photo-ops” planned for the start of the next Test at Ranchi where the captains and coaches are expected to shake hands and declare that the rest of the series will be played in “good spirit”. Given his no-nonsense approach to the game and his feisty personality, no one else looks better poised to expose cricket’s officialdom for trying to broker a meaningless, synthetic truce. And for good reason.
 |
| No right-thinking follower of the game will forgive BCCI for leaving the Indian captain in a veritable lurch. |
Witness the ICC-appointed match-referee Chris Broad’s statements which aggravated the controversy even further, following CA’s vociferous defence of Smith. Officially, Broad — in the name of ICC — confirmed that no charges would be laid against any player under its Code of Conduct. Referring pointedly to Smith and Kohli, the statement added that “both incidents” had been considered in the context of the match, and concluded that no further action would be taken “against either player.”
Speaking off the cuff to reporters — quite inappropriately, it must be noted, in his capacity as an ICC representative — Broad denied that the umpires had noticed any other prior “indiscretions” by the Australians with regard to DRS usage, and rationalised that Smith would face no penalty “because umpire Nigel Llong intervened before any indiscretion was actually committed.”
Major infirmities plague Broad’s framing of the issues as well as the arguments he trotted out to justify his conclusion. First, there was just one “incident” — not two. Clearly and unambiguously, it involved captain Smith responding to his batting partner Peter Handscomb’s suggestion that they should consult their mates in the dressing room — who are usually watching television replays — in deciding whether or not to opt for the decision review.
Smith, in the live telecast, was looking up to the room and gesturing for an opinion. The cameras then showed Kohli rushing towards the batsmen and bringing the Australians’ blatantly illegal act — or “indiscretion” to use Broad’s euphemism — to the attention of the on-field umpires.
Protest
By choosing to view Kohli as a consequential part of this incident, and by further choosing to interpret his understandably agitated on-field protest as a separate offence of comparable gravity, Broad effectively chose to value style over substance and conjured up a spurious symmetry of allegations against both players.
Characterised in this manner, the stage was thus set for him to don the proverbial juridical robes and coolly play the “neutral” referee, dispensing his brand of even-handed justice by absolving both players of any wrongdoing. Putting Kohli in the dock merely because he complained against Smith’s sharp practice was not only ridiculous — it’s tantamount to penalising the whistle-blower.
CA’s concern in ensuring its captain’s acquittal was obvious: Smith, if booked, would likely have to sit out the next Test. But what was ICC’s interest in this sleight-of-hand? That it allowed — actively or otherwise — its procedures to be manipulated in order to trap and corner Kohli, even after he showed uncharacteristic restraint to avoid calling Smith a “cheat” in his press conference at the mischievous suggestion of a journalist from Australia (where else?), only lends further credence to the charge of racism that has tainted ICC for several decades.
Injustice
That the BCCI acquiesced in this miscarriage of justice is more unfortunate, even inexcusable. Better counselled — by its highly-paid legal brains, no less — Kohli could have armed himself with video clippings of Australians consulting their dressing-room for DRS inputs before alleging that there were at least two occasions during his batting when they resorted to this illegality. (That selection process would be swift and easy, considering how short Kohli’s innings were in this Test.)
In their absence, his charge not only fell flat — it boomeranged, allowing Broad to use the lack of evidence to summarily dismiss it altogether. No amount of evidence, however, would cure Broad’s own flawed reasoning. To argue that Smith was let off without even a reprimand because although he sought an outside opinion, he was prevented from receiving it, is to be downright disingenuous.
The rule expressly prohibits consultation with — i.e, the seeking of an opinion from — anyone off the field, period. Broad’s line of thinking would argue for acquitting a murder accused because his act did not actually kill the victim!
An attempt to commit a wrongful act cannot be condoned because it did not accomplish its objective. Enough of Cheatgate, as some cricket writers aver, and let’s look forward to a clean contest in the next Test. Over to Ranchi then, where, in the words of an unlikely pacifist, the pugnacious Australian opener David Warner, on-field happenings should remain there.
Sure — so let’s begin by keeping all DRS consultations on-field.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)
Watch: