ICC bias against non-whites?

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Asif Iqbal

The feeling, all over Pakistan, will be that the player from the subcontinent has been penalised yet again while the white player, in a game riven to its depths by racism, has got off with no more than a reprimand. Since both decisions were given by officials appointed by the ICC, they may be construed as the ICC’s decisions and they should answer for having what amounts to one rule for and one for another.

I mentioned at the time that Gillespie and McGrath were caught on camera clearly mouthing obscenities at the batsmen but no action was taken, yet pointing a batsman in an ambiguous way is construed as unsporting behaviour. Absolutely ridiculous.

I don't know about racism, but the sport is taking it's time shaking off the colonial attitude, although it's come a long way in the last few years.

[Zainub]

I agree Shaka. Some people are too stuck up still with the past. We must get over it. I think it's fair to say the most people now in the UK, I talk of the odrinary public, people like me and you, aren't all that proud of their country's role in shaping history as it is, bring up the racism isssue every other second is not going to help. We must get over it.

[Shaka]

I wonder also if it's a case that the Aussies reported Shoaib so action had to be taken, but we didn't bother so nothing happened?

But Asif is right there should be a uniform policy, why Hall got a reprimand while Shoaib got fined is inexplicable.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Shaka

I wonder also if it's a case that the Aussies reported Shoaib so action had to be taken, but we didn't bother so nothing happened?

I don't think that is what happened, I think what happened was that the umpires personally took notice of it, and reported the inccident to the match referre. That's what I read in the papers and all.

[Shaka]

Even so, it doesn't explain why two different punishments were handed out for two identical offences wrt Shoaib and Hall. It's not the first time it's happened of course, I remember Rameez going ballistic when something similar happened a while back.

In the case of the Shoaib incident being picked up by the umpires, maybe the Pakistan management need to be a bit more pro-active and seek redress themselves if the umpires are spotting some offences and missing others? If I can see onscenities being uttered, if the commentators can see obscenitites being uttered, then surely someone representing Pakistan should be making a point that rules need to be enforced?

If mountains are going to be made out of molehills we might as well make sure we dig up our share!

[Zainub]

I agree, I think those type of things are the reponsibility of the team manager...whatever has Haroon Rashid been doing?

[Maranello]

I think the ICC does have a problem with enforcing its standards uniformly, and often, it is the Asian players who end up getting the short straw. This has always been happening in cricket, and thankfully, has decreased over the past decade, as England and Australia's stranglehold over the ICC and cricket is loosened.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Maranello

I think the ICC does have a problem with enforcing its standards uniformly, and often, it is the Asian players who end up getting the short straw.

And Murali got the short straw when he was banned for throwing the ball.



Oh ....................... no, he didn't did he ????

[Maranello]

Sarcastic one-liners are probably not the ideal way to conduct sensible debate NE; if you have an intelligent contribution to make, why don't you make it sensibly and maturely?

On the substance of your point about Murali, your view is that of the English and Australian cricket public, many of whom view Murali as a "chucker".

On the other hand, most non-biased observers, as well as Sri Lankans would feel that Murali was always unfairly picked on by Australians and Englishmen because they could not countenance a Sri Lankan being so much better than them. Unfair perception maybe, but that is the perception that leads to most of the non-Eng/Aus world feeling cricket is skewed to support England and Australia's duopoly.

I am not supporting either view about Murali here, merely summarising the divergent opinions, and the strong emotions and accusations these opinions give rise to.

[Nikhil]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

And Murali got the short straw when he was banned for throwing the ball.
Oh ....................... no, he didn't did he ????

Btw, did McGrath get any punishment for his mouthing of Sarwan? I think that's a famous incident.

Also, I remember the Slater-Dravid incident in Australia's 2001 tour to India. That was clearly a low point even for the Aussies, and as far as I remember Slater was not punished either.

The simple question I want to ask is, if both of them did the same thing, why should only one of them go unpunished. I believe there are rules to which the match-refree's adhare to, and it's not their own judgement alone. Therefore, even if there were two different match refrees, the punishment should be similar.