By Anil
June 7 2005

Why did ICC referee Alan Hurst find England wicketkeeper Geraint Jones not guilty of deceit for claiming a catch which he took on the bounce? "Bringing disrepute to the game" is quite a popular phrase in the ICC's Code of Conduct.

So is "conduct unbecoming his status".

And let's not forget "unfair play".

All of these fuzzy terms seem to gain precise and punishable meaning when certain players are accused of them. Referees will hand out dire punishments, also making pompous announcements to the media admonishing the player and possibly putting his career at risk.

However, could there be invisible subtext in these ICC definitions that says it is not possible for an English or Australian player to be guilty of such infractions?

Scene 1: Chester-le-Street, England

---

England wicketkeeper Geraint Jones collects a ball off Bangladeshi opener Nafees Iqbal that has bounced off the ground inches in front of his gloves. He enthusiastically claims a catch. The umpire gives him out, although most on the field, including the batsman, can plainly see the catch was not taken.

The batsman requests the umpire to refer the decision to the TV umpire, but is turned down.

As Iqbal leaves the ground, the giant ground TV shows the supposed "catch" to be a disgrace. The ball had bounced a few inches in front of the wicketkeeper's gloves. The umpire appears unconcerned.

Bangladesh's opening partnership was going very well at the time, but the wrongly-awarded wicket destroys the momentum.

A fuming Bangladesh manager Latif Khan lodges an official complaint with ICC referee, Alan Hurst. The Australian holds a quick hearing and rejects the complaint, announcing, "Video evidence was inconclusive and the player's intent was not proven."

On the contrary, the video taken from different angles clearly showed that Jones had taken the ball on the bounce, and at that level of cricket (or any other), there is absolutely no way Jones would not have been aware of that.

Scene 2: Multan, Pakistan

---

Pakistan captain Rashid Latif takes a diving catch in front of first slip and rolls over twice. He successfully appeals for it, sending back Bangladeshi batsman Alok Kapali. TV replays show that the ball may have touched the ground before the catch was completed. Latif believes the catch was cleanly taken.

A fuming Bangladeshi manager Latif Khan lodges an official complaint with ICC referee South African Mike Procter.

Procter does not believe Latif's account of the event and instead chooses to interpret uncertain TV evidence to indict the Pakistani captain. He announces to the media, "Mr. Latif should have known that he had not completed a catch. I have found him guilty of a Level 3 offence of Unfair Play under the ICC Code of Conduct and suspended him for five one-day International matches." He even goes on to accuse the Pakistani of failing his duty as a captain by cheating, "As captain a lot of responsibility falls on Rashid Latif and he committed a serious offence by claiming that catch which constitutes unfair play."

That implication of outright dishonesty spelt the end of Latif's career, who never returned to international cricket. His home board PCB did not support him, and the matter was soon forgotten.

Scene 3: Harare, Zimbabwe

---

Teammates of West Indies wicketkeeper Ridley Jacobs successfully appeal for a runout of Virender Sehwag. But he has broken the wicket with his right hand, while the ball was in his left hand. TV replays established clearly the sequence of events.

ICC referee Dennis Lindsay of South Africa bans Jacobs for three ODIs and said that this was an exceptional case of "cheating or sharp practice" meriting disciplinary action, noting that while the wicketkeeper himself had not appealed, he had every opportunity to recall Sehwag back to the wicket.

Why is Jones the odd man out?

It is unclear why, of the 3 cases above, Jones was the only player who managed to escape unscathed. And referee Alan Hurst is the only individual who viewed the evidence and found it "inconclusive".

If a match official can call this evidence inconclusive despite what the public can clearly see for themselves, then one senses a dim future for cricket. There have been calls for technology to help or supplement umpires, but here is a case in which technology was used, gave a clear answer, yet was deliberately misinterpreted.

It is interesting to note that while the English and Aussies have assailed the Bangladeshi team for their performance in the media, going so far as to ask the ICC to strip them of Test status, they still found it necessary to engage in "sharp practice" to win the game. Perhaps a strong performance by the minnows, precisely what they have been clamoring for, wasn't what they wanted to see after all?

Who is the cheat here?

Geraint Jones?
The England fielders who appealed with him?
Bowler Flintoff who knew the catch had not been taken?
Umpire Hair for giving it? Or refusing to refer it?
Referee Alan Hurst for making a dishonest ruling?
Or the ICC, for turning a blind eye to the dishonesty all around?

If Geraint Jones is not guilty, then the ICC surely is.

Terms such as "bringing disrepute to the game" or "unfair play" or "conduct unbecoming their status" would be appropriate descriptors for the conduct of the ICC here.

Sweeping reform to the controversial administrative body can be the only answer. And it must occur sooner rather than later.