Smith's explanation more unsatisfactory than his ruling

Sometimes while explaining controversial actions, one could go deeper into the mire. The explanation can be even more unsatisfactory than the judgement itself. Cammie Smith currently finds himself in this situation.

Of course one must give Smith, a happy go lucky cricketer in his playing days, credit for taking the rare step of publicly defending his case in the absolutely scandalous Michael Slater incident that marred the final day of the Mumbai Test. Smith, who played five Tests in the 60s, including the Brisbane tie, has been a match referee for some years now. Surely his experience, aligned to the yardsticks given to the officials by the International Cricket Council argued for a sterner penalty against the Australian than just the warning he got away with. His rather strange decision - to put it mildly - ignited a fuse among cricketers and fans alike. Even the normally taciturn Australian captain Steve Waugh admitted that "He (Slater) probably went over the top there. He got fired up and emotional about the whole thing. We are conscious that we have to create a good image on the field and it wasn't a good thing to happen."

And yet it must be admitted that Smith, now 67, did not exactly help matters by saying that Slater's clean record saved him from further punishment. By any yardstick, the punishment did not fit the crime but Smith just could not bring himself to either fine or suspend Slater when either of the two penalties would have been in order.

"I looked at the player's track record and have never seen him face a match referee before and took that into account. I am surprised people are concerned by this," Smith is reported to have said in justifying his soft decision on Slater. Well, Mr Smith, we are surprised first by your shocking ruling and then by your unsatisfactory explanation.

Putting his foot into the mouth, Smith is quoted to have said "it is important to note he (Slater) was not showing dissent at a decision made by the umpire. It was just a player's reaction." Well, I am sure anyone who has seen the TV replays would beg to differ with the honourable match referee. Showing dissent at a decision taken by the third umpire - who certainly was in a better position to give a ruling after going through several slow motion replays than Slater who completed the `catch' and appealed on the spur of the moment - arguing with the umpire on the field, indulging in heated exchanges with the batsman concerned and finally using foul language. If, after all this, a player is just let off with a warning, then something is terribly awry with Smith's calculations. Rulings like these make followers of the game question the competence of match referees.

It is all right to say that Slater later apologised to Dravid and "the two had a long and friendly conversation which cleared up any misunderstanding following the incident," as the Australian Cricket Board media manager Brian Murgatroyd put it in an unacceptable effort to play down the incident. That cannot be considered a satisfactory denouement to the eminently forgettable episode. We can also do without the kind of comments made by a former Test cricketer turned TV commentator who dismissed the incident as "that's all right in the heat of the moment." I am sorry, but the kind of behaviour exhibited by Slater and the sort of ruling by Smith is not all right. Neither can be condoned. Messrs Slater and Smith have done little to refurbish cricket's sagging image.