cricket

Updated: Jan 25, 2019 09:37 IST

After a fortnight of agonising uncertainty, Hardik Pandya and K L Rahul can breathe somewhat easy. The indefinite suspension they were under has been lifted by the Committee Of Administrators on the advice of new Amicus Curiae PS Narsimha pending the appointment of, and adjudication on allegations against the players, by an ombudsman.

In that sense, their return to cricket is still conditional, but the drift seems to be certainly in their favour after the raging tug-of-war between the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators, Vinod Rai and Diana Edulji, had imperiled their immediate future.

Also Read: Hardik Pandya to join Indian team in New Zealand, KL Rahul part of India A squad

In recent months, Rai and Edulji have been at loggerheads on virtually every issue. This has not only riled everyday administration, but also made the Indian cricket establishment look mindless. More so in the Pandya-Rahul matter.

Consider the trajectory of the case. Pandya and Rahul appear on a talk show hosted by Karan Johar, indulge in bawdy talk, the first named particularly offensive with his sexist and racist remarks, upsetting a large number of people apart from embarrassing the cricket establishment.

The BCCI was right in immediately issuing them a showcause notice. Some prompt action was also justified. But the COA was divided on what this should be. The players, chastened by the hostile reaction to their misadventure, made an unqualified apology, but were called back from Australia and missed the ODI series.

Meanwhile, a bigger storm was brewing.

Since Rai and Edulji didn’t see eye-to-eye, the matter was transferred into a legal-bureaucratic loop, necessitating an official inquiry. Surprise, surprise, the BCCI old guard, otherwise at loggerheads with the COA, offered support to Edulji!

Who would conduct this inquiry became another hump so the case was referred to the Supreme Court. But the top court couldn’t act immediately since there was no Amicus Curiae in place as Gopal Subramaniam had stepped down.

His replacement took over only after the case reached the Apex court. Moreover, an ombudsman was still be found so the Supreme Court provisionally listed the hearing on February 5. That may not be necessary, though the ombudsman’s decision is awaited.

JUST RIDICULOUS

I’ve dwelt on this in some detail to highlight the ridiculous manner in which the story has played out as yet. That the matter should even have reached the Supreme Court is laughable. Even a few years back, such an issue would have been tackled and disposed of by one of the Board’s vice-presidents.

In fact, even in the Mohammed Shami case of March last year, when the fast bowler’s wife had made a series of allegations against him, the problem was resolved swiftly, with the COA in agreement.

The BCCI refused to renew Shami’s central contract and asked the Anti Corruption Unit to investigate accusations of match-fixing against him. The then ACU head Neeraj Kumar gave Shami a clean chit after a probe and his central contract was restored. All within 15 days.

Also Read: Pandya, Rahul interim suspensions lifted by BCCI CoA pending appointment of Ombudsman

The charges against Shami were of a far more serious nature than those against Pandya and Rahul. What’s changed since is that relations between Rai and Edulji have gone rapidly downhill and Pandya and Rahul found themselves trapped in their powerplay.

NEGATIVE IMPACT

This is not to excuse the players from blame. But it did appear that they were copping it for reasons external to their misdeed. The ramifications of their suspension, however, went beyond media headlines and court hearings.

Not just Pandya and Rahul, but also the team management and selectors seeking to get the composition and balance of the team right for the World Cup which starts in less than six months, were in limbo.

The other aspect, no less important, has to do with the nature of the rap Pandya and Rahul deserve. Gender sensitisation, mentoring etc as assured by the BCCI are fine, but what about actual punishment some ask.

It’s beyond my expertise or business to spell out specifics, but Rahul Dravid’s advice (to fans as well as authority presumably) to treat the ‘mistake’ made by the players rationally and not ‘overreact’ was well made and perhaps also influenced the lifting of the ban.

Already, some repercussions of what such overreaction can entail has been felt elsewhere. Fourteen-year-old Musheer Khan, Mumbai’s under-16 captain, was banned for three years for poor behaviour last week.

ABSURD

Without doubt Musheer was guilty of gross misconduct. But a three-year ban on a 14-year-old! This is hardly reformatory, rather exposes how some in authority can be consumed by their own sense of self-importance and power, and scuttle young careers.

This reminds me of a leading sportsperson who was considered a ‘hothead’, tantrum-prone and badly behaved in his teens in the 1990s. Here’s a quote I found from a report in the New York Times of September 9, 2009 on him:

“He would cry when things went poorly, and send his racket skidding across the court after an error. On occasion he would whine at bad calls, slam balls in anger and argue with his father.’’

An AFP report from July 15, 2017 introduces him thus: “From racquet-smashing enfant terrible with a bad attitude and ill-advised ponytail to universally respected sporting role model and modern icon.’’

That player goes by the name of Roger Federer.

(The writer is a senior sports analyst and views are personal)