ICC must take a stand

Tony Becca, Contributor

The third Test of the four-match series between England and India is over and with home team now leading the series 3-0, they are now sitting comfortably at the top of the rankings.

The big talking point, however, remains the incident in the second Test match when Ian Bell was allowed to continue his innings after being ruled out. Cricket fans around the world, including this cricket fan, are still hopping mad that this happened, and in an international match at that.

The ICC, as the international body responsible for running the game, for setting the rules of the game, and for seeing that the rules are followed, are obliged to act, to do something to ensure that what happened at Trent Bridge during that second Test will never happen again anywhere on any cricket ground in the world.

It is their responsibility to do so, and they must do so if they are to be respected by those they serve, including by the Indians, before whom they have genuflected when it comes to so many things, including the much-debated Decision Review System.

This recent incident, however, is a horse of a different colour, and something which, if allowed to go unchallenged, could destroy the good that generations of cricketers have fought for over so many, many years.

There are many things which were wrong with the decision not to rule Bell out but to call him back.

Regardless of Bell's explanation, in his own words he was "naive" in leaving his crease believing that the ball had crossed the boundary because it had not done so, he ignored the signal of his partner, Eoin Morgan, to stay his ground, he questioned the umpire's decision to rule him out, and he said, before crossing the boundary on his way out, that the umpire had called "over".

Then there was the situation of Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower, the captain and the coach of England.

By checking with the umpires if Bell was really out according to the rules of the game, Strauss and Flower revealed that they did not know the rules of the game, and on top of that, they had no right going into India's dressing to talk with captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and to ask him to reconsider his appeal.

The umpires had already asked Dhoni three times if he stood by his team's appeal and he had said "yes", three times at that.

Strauss and Flower must also have remembered that the crowd, mostly English, had booed the Indian team coming off the field for the tea interval so it is likely that he would have been having second thoughts whether, for a peaceful life, he should have stuck to his appeal.

International incident

Flower said that he decided to go and talk to Dhoni because he "didn't think sitting in our dressing room and fuming quietly to ourselves was going to do any good", because he felt that Bell was not attempting a run, because he did not believe in "double standards" , because he was not convinced there would have been an uproar, despite the booing, and because he was convinced that if an England side had done that in Mumbai, against Tendulkar, there would have been an international incident.

Flower also said, although he did not believe that the Tent Bridge incident would have caused an uproar, that in relation to his imagination and Tendulkar, "I don't think that's being overly dramatic".

Bell was out, the umpire gave him out according to the rules, and he should have remained out.

For him to have said that the umpire had called "over" was wrong, and he did say, at the close of the day's play, that he had not heard him call "over".

What is important, very important, however, is Law 27, which deals with appeals, and sections 8 and 9 of that law.

Section 8: The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls and before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.

Section 9: An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire's decision, once made, is final.

That did not happen in this case, the umpires did nothing about it, the powers that be have hailed the return of the batsman as something good for cricket, and Dhoni and Strauss have strongly recommended that other captains follow suit.

Before that happens, however, before this law goes the way of other laws in the game, including the law governing throws, the ICC should come out and say why were Strauss and Flower allowed to get away with interfering in the decision-making process, why did they, if they were not, not check with the umpires before entering the Indian dressing room to encourage Dhoni to change his mind, why did the umpires allow Bell to return, and why, up to now, has match referee Ranjan Madugalle said nothing about the entire incident?

The ICC should answer these questions, and also what "double standards" was Flower talking about? Was it a figment of his imagination about an England side and Tendulkar in Mumbai?

Flower as a former international cricketer, as international captain, and as an international coach should know better than to compare something which happened with something which is the figment of his imagination to solve a problem, and especially as he is convinced that what happened would not have caused an uproar, despite the booing, and what did not happen would have been a proper international incident.