On last Thursday 17th July, MCA made some interesting decisions with regards to the May and June incidents with regard to a national player, national captain, national coach and, common to both, a national umpire.
For the May incident the national player and the national umpire were reprimanded and details will follow in a letter. To those who are not aware of what takes place in MCA on such matters, on the surface they seem fair. If one lifts the veil, then the aspect of the complaint manager not being at the hearing, calls into question the wisdom of the decision. No doubt the manager had provided a written complaint but his absence is no excuse for the reprimand of both.
Today being a hockey carnival at RSC, a number of stories have emerged and they are quite juicy. MCA had not much of a choice but to arrive at such a decision. On Friday the National Team played Hong Kong and this national player who had been banned had to play the match. This player, a former national captain, is the "heartbeat" of the national team. His absence itself is a sure sign of defeat for the National Team. There is no way MCA was going to permit it.
As far as this player is concerned, he has had enough of reprimands both in writing and verbally. MCA past and present do not have the guts to make a brave decision even when it is a clear cut case. Further, as a staff of MCA, there is this aspect of being "within the family" concept. I do not blame the player but rather the administrators of cricket who do not have the "stomach" to instill the sense of discipline. This is where other players too tend to take advantage. Ultimately, the "prima donnas" club in cricket appears, which itself reflects what national cricket is about.
As for the June incident of the national captain, national coach and the same national umpire, MCA formally approved the 3-man Panel. Strange! They had commenced their hearing on Monday 13th July. How come? As a spectator it is exciting watching MCA perform the circus act. Apparently, someone in MCA Exco had requested this 3-man Panel to commence without giving them a letter of appointment and the terms of the inquiry. The reason all these were possible is because of familiarity and "closeness". The 3-man Panel believed what was told to them and dived ahead. Seriously this itself is a proof that these 3 personalities have to disqualify themselves. Even if they do a proper job, which I firmly believe they would, having indulged into an inquiry without proper procedures, calls into question their overall approach.
The matter takes a greater dimension as one of the persons involved in the incident is connected to a key member of the Exco. Apparently this Exco member may have given the instructions to commence the hearing despite no formal approval of MCA. If that is the case then it is proper the whole Inquiry be reconstituted.
MCA, everyone is watching. Do not sweep issues under the carpet to momentarily solve the problem. On the long run MCA is only going to create a bigger problem. Such mockery must not be permitted and it is important proper wisdom must prevail in MCA.