ICC ducks bouncer, Shoaib let off lightly

Shoaib had first committed a Level Two offence last year, when he instigated the crowd in Zimbabwe by throwing a bottle into the stands. On that occasion, umpires David Orchard and S Venkatraghavan had also twice warned the Pakistani pacer for ball tampering.

The match, which saw Shoaib bowling a match-winning spell to take seven wickets, also witnessed those tell-tale ball-tampering symptoms: the ball wobbling abnormally in the air with deadly reverse swing. And, expectedly, Pakistan won the Test.

In Sri Lanka, too, Akhtar’s late spell was crucial. Wickets by him in the 44th, 46th and 48th overs turned the tide in a cliffhanger game. And since Shoaib went wicketless with new ball, it won’t be out of place to say that the spell with the tampered ball proved decisive.

Vishy’s decision sends out the wrong signals. A possible scenario is this: in a crunch match, a final for example, a captain can instruct his 12th man to doctor the ball knowing he’d miss only two further matches if caught.

There’s long been a debate about whether Pakistan’s great fast bowlers have been Sultans of Swing or Doctors of Deceit. Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Azhar Mohammad have made headlines for their ‘handiwork’ with the ball.

The PCB has also admitted to ball-tampering being rampant in their domestic league. Last November, six Pakistani players (none of them was a Test star) were fined Rs 3,000 for doctoring the ball.

However, Speed’s comments (above) on Venkat and David Shepherd’s handling of the West Indies-Australia match at Antigua, where Glenn McGrath and Ramnaresh Sarwan engaged in an ugly, lengthy verbal duel, are welcome. More so because the two umpires are reckoned to be about the best in the business and should be judged by even higher standards.

But it has a long way to go to redeem its wishy-washy image. Be it the contract crisis, the Zimbabwe boycott during the World Cup, the ‘suspect action’ clause or this ball tampering issue, the ICC has been found wanting. Its dictum is clear: Avoid rubbing anyone on the wrong side. So what if all the issues pile up under the carpet?