Home
Cricket: Is ICC biased against the Subcontinental teams?
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Jan 7 2008
YES # International Cricket Council’s (ICC) reputation as the sport’s international governing body has been marred by its performance and it has hurt the spirit of the game by continuous atrocious arbitrations.
# ICC continues with match referees and umpires who have dubious records against some countries.
NO # Racism in cricket has been a problem in the past and it was an Australian player who was first banned in the history of cricket for racial abuse.
# ICC realizes the game of cricket is paramount and has given ground on many key issues while standing as firm as a brick statue on another.
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
It has become a very evident fact that ICC is biased against the subcontinental teams... What happened after the Sydney Test match, a lot would agree that the entire Australian team should have been banned. The kind of sportsmanship displayed by the team has been disgraceful. Cricket is considered as a gentleman’s game but the World champions are putting the grace of the game into jeopardy.
ICC’s decision to ban Bhajji is definitely based on racism. No two ways about it, when the match referee does not have any proof about racial remarks passed by Bhajji how can they declare the verdict as guilty by just listening to some aussies who’s main aim would be to remove the danger man from the squad.
India’s appeal to the ICC is a right one and the Council deserves to be questioned. Such kind of severe decisions was seen even against Pakistan’s Rashid Latif for not accepting that the ball hit the ground. Sachin Tendulkar had to face a ban for ball tampering. Such decisions do not seem to be applicable with the white teams. The so called non-white teams suffer at the end of it which definitely questions the ICC’s credibilty and ability to be non biased against any team.
ICC’s decision to ban Bhajji is definitely based on racism. No two ways about it, when the match referee does not have any proof about racial remarks passed by Bhajji how can they declare the verdict as guilty by just listening to some aussies who’s main aim would be to remove the danger man from the squad.
India’s appeal to the ICC is a right one and the Council deserves to be questioned. Such kind of severe decisions was seen even against Pakistan’s Rashid Latif for not accepting that the ball hit the ground. Sachin Tendulkar had to face a ban for ball tampering. Such decisions do not seem to be applicable with the white teams. The so called non-white teams suffer at the end of it which definitely questions the ICC’s credibilty and ability to be non biased against any team.
All this clearly shows the absolute spinelessness of the BCCI. I totally agree with Vikas, Indian Team must withdraw as there is no point of playing with the people who are lacking sportsmanship.
Yes, definitely. The days of colonialism have long gone by, but it seems racism lingers in cricket. The brown or black man is the evil cheater. The white man does no wrong; seems to be the mindset of ICC. Why are subcontinental players punished severely at the whiff of some little indiscretion? With Australians, it is called playing tough (but fair cricket) and easily tolerated.
To call the ICC a racist body will not be right. I guess that the hangover of the Raj still persists within us and the ’white’ cricketing countries where we still continue to be ’gentleman’ and meek in voicing our dissent and demanding justice and give in to the superiority complex of the white officials. This is seen rightly as a weakness by many ICC member countries and twist our arms further. This is precisely why players from countries like Australia escape with lesser penalties than players from say India for same offense.
India alone accounts for 70% of the global cricketing revenues and the survival of many cricketing nations will be severely jeopardized should India starts boycotting ICC events and stops supporting those cricketing boards. If India wants, it can have its way each and every time with the ICC.
The fault lies with us for not being vocal or assertive enough with complaints. The BCCI is more interested in making money than standing up to its players’ grievances in the international scenario, say for example Saurav Ganguly’s many bans as penalties.
It had to take a controversy as big as the current one following the Black Test at Sydney for the BCCI to wake up. The last time it did was during the Dennis Amiss controversy in South Africa.
We must not forget that Ranjan Madugalle, one of the most prominent match referees of ICC is a Sri Lankan and is notorious for being anti-Indian players when it comes to imposing fines and penalties. How would one explain that?
The fault lies in us for being so meek and continuing with the Raj hangover. Give them an inch and they will take a foot, and that’s precisely what we have been doing.
India alone accounts for 70% of the global cricketing revenues and the survival of many cricketing nations will be severely jeopardized should India starts boycotting ICC events and stops supporting those cricketing boards. If India wants, it can have its way each and every time with the ICC.
The fault lies with us for not being vocal or assertive enough with complaints. The BCCI is more interested in making money than standing up to its players’ grievances in the international scenario, say for example Saurav Ganguly’s many bans as penalties.
It had to take a controversy as big as the current one following the Black Test at Sydney for the BCCI to wake up. The last time it did was during the Dennis Amiss controversy in South Africa.
We must not forget that Ranjan Madugalle, one of the most prominent match referees of ICC is a Sri Lankan and is notorious for being anti-Indian players when it comes to imposing fines and penalties. How would one explain that?
The fault lies in us for being so meek and continuing with the Raj hangover. Give them an inch and they will take a foot, and that’s precisely what we have been doing.
Cricket basically is a simple game, but of late, the Umpires and Match Referees have advantage of particular laws to cover their own blunders. there’s no fault of ICC but BCCI has been politicising it by making it so complicated that exhibition of its bias is for all to see in its absolute brazenness.
there’s nothing wrong with the rules and decisions of ICC for the players with different skin color. The preamble of `The Laws Of The Game’ states `Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game.
but i think ever since the more money is being involved in the game and ever since the biggest beneficiaries are the subcontinental teams esp India’s BCCI we are witnessing more and more cases of the ICC’s bias.
In the recent incident from the Australian tour of India where Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh called Symonds a ’monkey’ should have been reported (that’s because there are rules and laws) if Aussies did i think it was right but in the whole mess the ICC has been scrutinized unnecessarily for the failures of ridiculously outstanding umpires. The ICC will be better served reviewing and rectifying the outlandish decisions of its officials rather than defending their actions.
there’s nothing wrong with the rules and decisions of ICC for the players with different skin color. The preamble of `The Laws Of The Game’ states `Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game.
but i think ever since the more money is being involved in the game and ever since the biggest beneficiaries are the subcontinental teams esp India’s BCCI we are witnessing more and more cases of the ICC’s bias.
In the recent incident from the Australian tour of India where Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh called Symonds a ’monkey’ should have been reported (that’s because there are rules and laws) if Aussies did i think it was right but in the whole mess the ICC has been scrutinized unnecessarily for the failures of ridiculously outstanding umpires. The ICC will be better served reviewing and rectifying the outlandish decisions of its officials rather than defending their actions.
It’s not a question of being Meek and gentlemen in voicing our dissent and demanding justice and give in to the superiority complex of the white officials. Cricket has always been a gentleman’s game and if that is the way we Indian’s are, it speaks volumes about the ethics with which we play the game.
On the other hand it has been the Aussies (referring specifically to the Sydney test) who have marred the true spirit of the game even by their own standards for it’s a very famous Aussie saying ’whatever starts on the ground has to be finished on the ground’.
There isn’t a problem with our approach to the game but its the cricket highest governing body which has on more than one occasion proved bias for instance the chucking ban on murali stayed for more than seven months and bhaji was banned from bowling the doosra until very recently and interestingly Bret lee muscled past a chucking ban in four days time and Shane Bond didn’t even require a testimonial, video clips were good enough to defy any sort of restrictions on his bowling .
On the other hand it has been the Aussies (referring specifically to the Sydney test) who have marred the true spirit of the game even by their own standards for it’s a very famous Aussie saying ’whatever starts on the ground has to be finished on the ground’.
There isn’t a problem with our approach to the game but its the cricket highest governing body which has on more than one occasion proved bias for instance the chucking ban on murali stayed for more than seven months and bhaji was banned from bowling the doosra until very recently and interestingly Bret lee muscled past a chucking ban in four days time and Shane Bond didn’t even require a testimonial, video clips were good enough to defy any sort of restrictions on his bowling .
Well, the treatment by Mike Proctor( ICC Match Referee) to Harbhajan Singh and Team India is a serious issue and must be taken in consideration seriously. ICC may not have intentionally wanted this to happen, but I guess match referee, Mike Proctor, the Umpires and the Team Australia definitely wanted to see the back of Harbhajan Singh. Its tragic that Aussies have resorted to illicit means to tackle class spin bowling. This is not the first time that Australia has dished out such treatment to Sub continental teams.
Murali’s incident and Shoaib Akhtar’s incidents have made Australia the most hated team in the world.
Maybe, they realize that sub continental teams can be a threat to their reigning champion tag. India did that comprehensively in the T20 world cup and its their sense of insecurity that is making them go nasty.
Maybe its high time that ICC looks into this and make amends. ICC would not surely want that the sub continent money to stop. Cricket will die if this happens....
Although, I dont agree that ICC as a body has been racist. A small group of people’s doing cant reflect what the ICC is...
In 2003, in the South Africa incident, Mike Proctor ( the same referee) decided against the Indians, but the South Africa board joined hands with BCCI and the match was declared unofficial. Maybe, Mike Proctor with the help of the beleaguered Aussie team sought revenge....
But, definitely ICC is not biased. After all, ICC will not hurt people from the sub continent if it wants that its authority and power remains. ICC will lose is charm and with that a truck load of money....
Something, ICC wont like and cant afford....
Murali’s incident and Shoaib Akhtar’s incidents have made Australia the most hated team in the world.
Maybe, they realize that sub continental teams can be a threat to their reigning champion tag. India did that comprehensively in the T20 world cup and its their sense of insecurity that is making them go nasty.
Maybe its high time that ICC looks into this and make amends. ICC would not surely want that the sub continent money to stop. Cricket will die if this happens....
Although, I dont agree that ICC as a body has been racist. A small group of people’s doing cant reflect what the ICC is...
In 2003, in the South Africa incident, Mike Proctor ( the same referee) decided against the Indians, but the South Africa board joined hands with BCCI and the match was declared unofficial. Maybe, Mike Proctor with the help of the beleaguered Aussie team sought revenge....
But, definitely ICC is not biased. After all, ICC will not hurt people from the sub continent if it wants that its authority and power remains. ICC will lose is charm and with that a truck load of money....
Something, ICC wont like and cant afford....
@saibose:
There is a factual error in your comment. The South Africa incident that you are talking about involved Dennis Amiss and not Mike Procter. The match itself was not abandoned; it still stands as an official Test. The Indians demanded that Amiss was removed for the third Test but the ICC didn’t do it. The cricket boards of SA and India went ahead with the ’Test’ without Dennis Amiss, but the ICC didn’t recognize it as an official Test. This is the story.
I agree that the ICC needs to have a long hard look at some of the ways the match referees, umpires and players of certain nations are conducting and playing the game. This will only happen if the all powerful BCCI takes a hard stance and shows zero-tolerance for such incidents in the future. So far they had been meek and focussed only on making money.
There is a factual error in your comment. The South Africa incident that you are talking about involved Dennis Amiss and not Mike Procter. The match itself was not abandoned; it still stands as an official Test. The Indians demanded that Amiss was removed for the third Test but the ICC didn’t do it. The cricket boards of SA and India went ahead with the ’Test’ without Dennis Amiss, but the ICC didn’t recognize it as an official Test. This is the story.
I agree that the ICC needs to have a long hard look at some of the ways the match referees, umpires and players of certain nations are conducting and playing the game. This will only happen if the all powerful BCCI takes a hard stance and shows zero-tolerance for such incidents in the future. So far they had been meek and focussed only on making money.
The unity of Team India and support of BCCI to the team finally forced the ICC for hiding its nature of ’definite biasness’ for a moment in Australia. The ICC has kicked out Buckner and allowed Bhajji to play the matches till the next hearing on the issue. Its a celebration time not only for Indian team but also for other subcontinent teams as well. However, the players will have to remain cautious because this ’biased’ council would bounce back on Indian players for sure...
APOLOGY
The match referee in the controversial 2001 Port Elizabeth Test in South Africa was Mike Denness and not as mentioned by me. My apologies to all, especially saibose for that goof.
The error is deeply regretted.
The match referee in the controversial 2001 Port Elizabeth Test in South Africa was Mike Denness and not as mentioned by me. My apologies to all, especially saibose for that goof.
The error is deeply regretted.
Why is India making such a big fuss abt the whole incident and why is this debate here abt ICC, calling for sympathies from all over the subcontinent? I think because Indians can not win from Aussies and loosing so many matches in a row to the true champions of world has made Indians to look for tactics that is alien to the subcontinent. Indian team is scared of playing the full series because they cannot win even a single match. They are no match to the great Aussies. Nice try Indians to get rid of the shame of loosing all the matches with your so called long batting line up including all the masters and blasters. LOL
@ mansoor I totally agree with you. This is all being done in a bid to gain sympathy. What happened in Australia happens in every test match, the umpires give a dozen of decisions that totally favour one of the teams and they should ask the captain of one of the teams, just to be sure of their decision. And how could anybody call the ICC or Australians racist, they aren’t monkeys after all.
And you are right, this debate should not be here. We should all discuss why the former Prime Minister of an Asian country died. It is a very interesting topic as there are a number of theories ranging from state of the art laser guided weapons, to bombs, bullets, sunroofs or some god damned supernatural power involved in the incident. And yes, now both of us can LOL.
And you are right, this debate should not be here. We should all discuss why the former Prime Minister of an Asian country died. It is a very interesting topic as there are a number of theories ranging from state of the art laser guided weapons, to bombs, bullets, sunroofs or some god damned supernatural power involved in the incident. And yes, now both of us can LOL.
We are very quick to blame ICC for the bias after we lost the matches. Match referees or the ICC is not there to favor anyone…we shouldn’t react over ICC’s decision calling it bias for not letting any favours to our team. The loss in the recent series despite the umpiring dodge was due to the lack of Virender Sehwag. It is a clear indication that we need Sehwag in the lineup as an opener. His explosive run chase may have earned us a victory in last 2 tests.
Yes, that’s true, mind you; it hasn’t happen for the first time in cricket history! This is surely the denigration of cricket and there are scores of incidents in the past that make us remember the partial attitude of ICC who is, every now and then, mute on the racial comments from white people, but penalized continental players heavily for some meager comments even. And likes of Mike Denness and Steve Buckner should be thrown out in order to let cricket remain the gentle man’s game and there are stern need to frame the strict laws to prevent the same in the near future.
Add your Comment
Check what Peter Roebuck has to say on this – “RICKY PONTING must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team. In the past few days Ponting has presided over a performance that dragged the game into the pits. He turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs.”
Indian Team should come back immediately, without giving it a second thought. And, not to mention, strict action, including suspension, should be taken against both the umpires. There is not point playing against hypocrites, diluting the integrity of the game in the process.