According to a news agency report, the BCCI, in its reply to the show cause of the International Council (ICC), has argued that the pitch might be (sic) poor but it was not unfit for playing.
The defence of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over the allegedly 'dangerous' Ferozeshah Kotla Stadium wicket prepared for the fifth ODI against Sri Lanka in Delhi on December 27 is pathetic, ludicrous and patently untenable.
According to a news agency report, the BCCI, in its reply to the show cause of the International Council (ICC), has argued that the "pitch might be (sic) poor but it was not unfit for playing".
The top brass of the BCCI reportedly met on Sunday and decided to make the defence u2014 obviously a flimsy attempt to pull the wool over the eyes u2014 refuting match referee Alan Hurst's damaging report. The fiasco resulted in the disgraceful abandonment of the match.
The incident is all the more embarrassing considering India's standing in world cricket as a financial powerhouse and because Delhi, by virtue of being a traditional Test venue, is scheduled to host four 2011 World Cup matches.u00a0
The unsavoury episode does nothing to validate the reported claims of an Indian city (Mumbai) to headquarter the ICC, upon Mr Sharad Pawar's imminent assumption of the world body's presidency.
The deplorable incident has sullied the image of the capital city and its ability to satisfactorily conduct an international sporting event, albeit in a non-cricket discipline, of the magnitude of this year's Commonwealth Games.
The immense clout of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) in the affairs of the game in the country is no secret.
The personal involvement of the DDCA's president, an eminent lawyer-politician, in endeavouring to tone down the gravity of the incident, is understandable. And chances are the defence drawn up is cogently argued and
eloquently crafted.
Be that as it may, the argument that play continued till 23.3 overs before the officials abandoned the game is implausible and that the association consulted independent persons in preparing the wicket is manifestly indefensible in the circumstances.
The DDCA's lame expostulation is obviously motivated by a desire to invoke ICC action under the less severe "poor rating for the first time" offence that would attract a warning and/or fine not exceeding $15,000, which is small change for the affluent BCCI.
An "unfit" rating, on the other hand, would invite a suspension of the venue'su00a0 international status for between 12 and 24 months and, thereby, scuttle its overweening desire to stage World Cup matches between February 24 and March 9.
Coming after the outrageous kerfuffle over the state of the wicket when Australia played in Mumbai in 2004, the shameful DDCA incident has tarnished the image of Indian cricket.
There are suggestions the BCCI will set up a "commission" to probe the matter.
Unfortunately, all too frequently, inquiries and investigations in our country are eyewash and a subterfuge to sweep the dust under the carpet.
In this instance, instead of fraternally colluding with the DDCA, in you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours fashion, the BCCI should come down heavily on the DDCA, suspend it, if found guilty, and bring the culprits to book in exemplary manner, irrespective of the ICC's final verdict.
The influence the BCCI wields in the affairs of the game internationally imposes on it a corresponding duty not only to function in principled manner in its own domestic affairs but to be seen to be doing it.
