Lopsided application of rules

Now isn't this peculiar!

Two international umpires of the ICC's elite panel find a player guilty -- GUILTY -- of ball tampering. An ICC match referee reviews the evidence, finds the ball's character has been altered, and upholds the charge.

The result? The player in question is let off with a 'severe reprimand'.

The one reason, more than any other, that gets the ICC condemned is lopsided application of its own rules -- and this is a prime example. It was not so long ago that another ICC match referee, Mike Denness, lined up and figuratively shot half the Indian side for an assortment of sins.

That wholesale slaughter also accounted for Sachin Tendulkar, on the charge of ball tampering. This, despite the fact that neither umpire doing duty at the time found anything wrong with the ball; this, despite the fact that a post-match inspection of the ball found nothing wrong with it; this, despite the fact that no review of the evidence proved that Tendulkar was guilty as charged.

Then, sans evidence, an international cricketer was punished; today, despite the evidence, another international cricketer is let off with a reprimand.

Doesn't the cricket world deserve some consistency from its governing body? Don't we deserve an explanation?

The Mike Denness controversy - the complete coverage

Mail Cricket Editor