Rashid’s ban turns office of Match Referee into a mockery
By Omar Kureishi
Match Referee Mike Procter gave Bangladesh a consolation prize-the scalp of Rashid Latif. The judgement to ban Rashid Latif for five ODI’s amounts to a miscarriage of justice and turns the office of the Match Referee into a mockery.
Examine the evidence. Rashid Latif rolled over twice to take the snick from Alok Kapali. At the end of the second roll, the ball was on the ground and prima facie it pointed to Rashid not being in complete control of the catch and, therefor, the batsman should have been given the benefit of the doubt.Instead he was given out by the umpire.
**Rashid was within his rights to appeal. It was and is for the umpire to decide. When a wicketkeeper rolls over to take a catch, he may himself not be aware that the ball has slipped from his control. He is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
There is nothing to suggest that he was trying to con the umpire and even if he was, how many times would Procter have appealed for a catch or a leg-before during his distinguished cricket career and have the appeal turned down?**
Bringing pressure on the umpire has become a part of the game. It is for the umpire to show mental toughness and refuse to be conned. In this particular case, it is the umpire who demonstrated his incompetence. **The wrong person was punished. I am surprised that the PCB has not chosen to appeal. **
In the Oval Test between England and South Africa the umpire (Venkatraghavan) gave Neil McKenzie out leg-before when there was clearly a huge inside edge. It did not need a replay to establish this, it was visible to the naked eye and a person would have had to be both blind and deaf not to have noticed this, including the bowler and the close fieldsmen.
They bellowed their appeal and got the decision. Flintoff, the bowler almost did a cartwheel in joy. Surely he must have known that there had been an inside edge.
**There is another incident and it concerns Russell Tiffin. The Bangladeshis are an excitable lot and as they sniffed victory there was some over-zealous appealing. Tiffin may have cautioned them but to no avail. He then chose to give the Bangladesh a public dressing-down, like a White Zimbabwe farmer bawling out his serfs. It was demeaning and insulting to the Bangladesh players and, they, poor chaps were dutifully cowed down. **
An umpire is a figure of authority but a sort of benign and avuncular authority. Tiffin came out as something of a martinet, if not a bully.
Stupendous! That was the word that I would have used had Bangladesh won the third Test and it is the word that I will still use to describe Inzamam’s innings. In the entire Pakistan line-up and this includes the flock of " youngsters" who are being handed out Test caps as if they were free samples, :hehe: there is only one batsman capable of winning a Test match single-handedly and that is Inzamam.
Just as well it was decided that he had ‘rested’ enough and brought back into the team, in the nick of time, it would appear. Not so lucky was Yusuf Youhana and it was his turn to be ‘rested’. The mind boggles. He is Pakistan’s main batsman after Inzamam and he was getting into rhythm in the Peshawar Test.
I have absolutely no idea whose decision it was to get him to sit out the Multan Test. Ordinarily, it is the team’s think-tank that picks the playing eleven. It would be nice if someone came forward to accept the responsibility.
Just as well that Pakistan was able to win the Multan Test by the skin of its teeth. Youhana’s absence will now not get the attention it deserves and the chapter of the Test series will be closed. Will anything have been learnt? Muddling through is a poor substitute for planning.
Bangladesh came very, very close. Mohammad Rafique could have run out Umar Gul when he had backed up too far. It is considered unsporting to do so. Why? The non-striker gets a clear advantage. By the same token, stumping too should be considered unsporting!
Courteny Walsh did the same in the 1987 World Cup when Salim Jaffer was yards down, backing. It cost the West Indies the match and brought their exit from the World Cup. We honoured Courteny Walsh by giving him a medal. Surely Rafique deserves a medal too.
I know the Bangladeshi cricket fans will be heart-broken but the honours of the series must go to them though that is hardly a consolation. In the end, the reality of winning a Test came too close to the fantasy of it and Bangladesh lost the plot. That an Inzamam was too much for them.
**Imagine if Bangladesh had won. Would there have been the same accusations that greeted the Pakistan team when it lost to Bangladesh in the World Cup 1999 and would the same people have surfaced who had charged the team with selling out to the bookies? **
It makes one shudder. What a thin line there is between winning and losing. Apart from making one shudder, it also makes one think. We seem to be adept in scoring own goals.
And what about Ali Bacher? Would he have roared " foul play" as he did in 1999 without a shred of evidence and got away with slandering the Pakistan players? He needed a kick-in-the pants. He did not even get a rap on the knuckles.
Procter too will get away with his harsh and unwarranted judgement. The South Africans seem to be lucky!
A final word about Yasir Ali. He was too raw to be rushed into a Test match. But he can become a genuine fast bowler for he can generate real pace. He should be sent to Australia to play club cricket and someone like Darryl Foster can work with him. That would be money well spent.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/10/spt4.htm
Mr. Moderator pls dont put this under rashid latif’s forum as it has other issues as well besides rashid’s… Thanks