The seamy underbelly of Port Elizabeth

Sachin Tendulkar to serve a suspended sentence? Can it be true? Sachin Tendulkar and ball tampering? Can the two go together? Such are the disbelieving reactions from Indian cricket fans who have, for years, accepted the 28-year-old as the epitome of fair play on the field and impeccable behaviour off it. Predictably enough, the action taken against six Indian players, including Tendulkar, by match referee Mike Denness has stirred a hornets' nest in this country. And not without good reason.

Tendulkar attended a hearing with Denness following allegations of ball tampering during the ongoing second Test between South Africa and India in Port Elizabeth. Four other players - Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh, Shiv Sunder Das and Deep Dasgupta - also appeared before Denness on charges of showing dissent and excessive appealing, while captain Sourav Ganguly was charged with failing to control his players. Tendulkar was summoned after television broadcasts of the third day's play showed him allegedly using his fingernails to tamper with the seam of the ball. Denness requested videotaped copies of the incident from television producers. Significantly, the matter was not reported by the umpires.

Cleaning dirt from the ball and tampering with it are two very different things. Television footage - including a couple of close-ups -­ would seem to indicate that Tendulkar is cleaning the seam of the ball. As is well known, dirt is bound to accumulate on the ball, especially in the damp weather conditions prevalent during the Port Elizabeth Test. It is common practice, then, for fielders and bowlers to remove the dirt with the nails. Of course, they also have the habit of shining one side of the ball in an attempt to swing it by making it dirt-free. There is certainly nothing in the television images to indicate that Tendulkar is trying to lift the seam or tamper with it, which of course is against the law. There was no bottle-cap or any of the sharp instruments that were alleged to have been used by Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis on the Pakistan tour of England in 1992.

In 1994 came the infamous incident involving England captain Michael Atherton, who attempted to rub dirt taken from his pocket on to the ball. Match Referee Peter Burge pulled up Atherton, who was fined 2000 pounds by England's chairman of selectors. Atherton weathered the subsequent media storm, resisting immense pressure to resign. Interestingly, even on that occasion, the umpires had not reported any malpractice.

"After having played international cricket for 12 years, I do know what is right and what is wrong," said Tendulkar. That is a strong argument in his favour; another is his reputation. So well has he carried himself on the field that he has never even been reprimanded. The available evidence too is favourable to Tendulkar. The sooner justice prevails, the better.

This unhappy episode, however, brings us to the larger perspective of world cricket and the following all-important question. If umpires and match referees can pull up players, who can pull up the umpires and match referees?

The increasingly boorish behaviour of players led to the International Cricket Council appointing match referees and giving greater powers to umpires. But then again, the officials too can be guilty of mistakes or poor and biased judgement. What happens then? Should they be allowed to get away scot-free? Should not the ICC take action against such incompetent officials? After all, their decisions, sometimes even blatantly wrong, can affect a player's future and reputation. Have the officials got the right to tinker so casually with a player's career?

Of late, these queries have become more vociferous. Television replays have shown the umpires in poor light, and some of the penalties announced by match referees have been so inconsistent that they have been difficult to digest. One increasingly comes to the conclusion that there are ulterior motives behind such decisions. It is very difficult to accept some of the judgments made by match referees like Cammie Smith and Mike Denness, and Monday's ruling by the latter is one such case.

How are ICC match referees selected? What are their qualifications and credentials? Do they receive a proper brief regarding the job? The last question is asked because there is so much inconsistency in their approach. There is no penalty for one particular player, but there is a severe penalty for another player who is similarly errant. Where is the justice, one may well ask. Is there no single yardstick? The ICC should tackle this issue head-on, sooner rather than later, before it becomes a problem that gets outrageously out of hand.