Jan
25
Harbhajan Singh
In fact, cricket can be taken as perfect example of Laissez-Faire system and Democracy. BCCI along with ACB are completely autonomous bodies and they hire players for the game. Indian/Australian government and Indian/Australian community have no say in it.
All cricket boards like ACB and BCCI etc agrees upon unanimously for a selection of international cricket board with representatives of each and every autonomous cricket board chosen by them. ICC is not to rule over the autonomous cricket boards, but it is to provide security, impartiality, peace and valid environment for the progress of cricket.
The cricket laws are revived and discussed about via an open and free medium. And the agreed upon regulations is applied.
It is just like the Private Competitive Agencies are gathering and agreeing upon a code of conduct freely with a full autonomy to reject or defend any regulation and have a reasonable argument about it in a civil manner.
Whenever some dispute occurs, the ICC, which is nothing but a third party to provide justice on subtle issues and which has been appointed in democratic way, acts and decides on it.
The truth is, for every situation, the different autonomous bodies infer their rights differently.
As for example, Australian players when uses slurs and attacking gestures and languages in playing field against the competitor team, they calls it a healthy instrument to project high-esteem within themselves and weaken the esteem of other team. But when the players of other team acts just the same way against them to protect their self-esteem (as Harbhajan did in the previous test match against the attacks and abuses of Symonds) they tries to color it as illegal. What would have been the case if there was no democratically assigned ICC? Was there any chance to avoid the wrong actions of the team-up of umpires and Australian team? No, there was not. Still, because of the presence of a higher unanimously decided body to discuss and correct disruptive issues, the case of flunking of umpires to provide a dispassionate and unbiased decision on ground, and the further case of wrong decision by ICC about the dispute between Harbhajan and Symonds was appealed and re-appealed to bring about a agreeable consensus. It was possible only because of the code of the conduct democratically enumerated in the cricket rules book about the lines of the umpire decisions and the attitude of the players on ground. In absence of that, a vital harassment of BCCI players was possible (which actually was tried too, but was negated). Now, as the Umpire Steve Buckner acted against the cricket rules and was not compatible, he was removed. Otherwise, he was favorable for the ACB players, and in absence of the choice of opposing against him, BCCI players might have got no chance to either to keep playing in same deteriorating conditions provided by attacking ACB team and defaulting umpires.
Honesty and demand of peace is not so much in demand that all code of conducts can be removed.
(picture is from http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39351000/jpg/_39351846_harbhajan_300.jpg )
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “Harbhajan and Symonds”
Leave a Reply
Viraj Says:
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pmread many articles on this issue so far…but urs projects it in altogether diff light. nice views :)