NEW DELHI, JULY 11: Not many eyebrows will be raised here at the news that Bret Lee has been reported for chucking. When the Indian team was being battered by the pace of Lee in Australia last winter, the rumblings in the Indian camp on the validity of some of Lee's lethal deliveries were dismissed by the Australian press as ``usual excuses'' from a team which did not have the technique to stand up to quality fast bowling. Most of what was being written by the home press and even by the visiting press on India's leaden response to Lee's thunderbolts was unflattering to say the least. There was no real debate on the whole issue - most of the headlines screaming Shoiab Akhtar's ban and subsequent lifting of it in a most shocking manner by the ICC. However, there were still a few watchers of the game who felt that if Akhtar's action was suspect, then Lee could also be "throwing stones". Star Sports channel did show both Akhtar and Lee's action from various angles during the India series and the general consensus seemed to have been that if one chucks, so does the other. The debate finally got mired in allegations and counter allegations with the Indian team feeling very strongly that their players were being targetted by the match referee, the former Sri Lankan player Ranjan Madugulle, for all the wrong reasons: For belonging to the sub-continent. Fair or unfair, this feeling does persist in the sub-continent that match referees around the world are very lenient towards the players from the White countries when it comes to penalising them for perceived misconduct on the field. When the Lee controversy broke out on the tour, the same story unfolded itself. The Indians felt that had Lee been a player from the sub-continent it would have been difficult for him to escape the microscopic eyes of a match referee, like it had happened with Akhtar on the Australian tour. The media response, too, was revealing. Whereas Akhtar was dubbed to be the culprit in the Australian press, Lee was defended vigorously. Like then and now, the sanest voice appears to be that of the Australian captain Steve Waugh. What he has said in defence of Lee today is almost a repeat of what he had said in defence of Akhtar then. The unkindest cut for the Australians must be the fact that the umpires who have reported on Lee's action happen to be Indians. It may matter little in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion that one of the two umpires, S. Venkataraghavan, is widely regarded as the finest of his tribes, someone whose umpiring record and credentials are impeccable. But, like it or not, this gives the whole plot a twist which could lead to sharper polarisation of the two worlds divided by the colour of their skin. The Pakistan Board has already accused former New Zealand player and match referee John Reid of bias against them after he suspended Waqar Younis for ball tempering in Sri Lanka yesterday. This is not for the first time they have said so against him, as Reid was also responsible for reporting Akhtar to the ICC for chucking. Today, it has been found that Lee was reported to the ICC by Indian umpires. In the recent backdrop of what has transpired in the ICC, where a simmering discontent is brewing among the Asian nations, the Lee story has the potential to further dent the already battered image of the game.
