Goodbye Steve!

Just heard that Steve Bucknor is going to retire as umpire next March. Am instantly reminded of a college assignment I wrote at the height of the Sydney Test fiasco last year. Reproducing it here again.

(Warning: For those of you who hate anti-media rants, ignore this post)

The second cricket Test match played between India and Australia at Sydney will be remembered for the controversies it generated rather than the cricket which was played. Umpire Steve Bucknor, member of the International Cricket Council’s Elite Panel, made as many as 11 blunders against India. And to make things worse, the Australian cricket team alleged that Harbhajan Singh made racist remarks against Andrew Symonds.

Given the undue attention that is paid to cricket in our country, it was but natural that the media would devote reams of newsprint to this story. In its article that appeared on Jan 6, 2008 titled “India laid low by Benson-Bucknor duo”, the Indian Express called Bucknor “blind”. The Hindu which is normally measured in its reportage carried a front page story on January 7, 2008 confirming a three Test ban on Harbhajan Singh. News channels went on a “Breaking News” blitzkrieg and certain sections of the electronic media alleged that Steve Bucknor held a grudge against the Indians.

Being an avid cricket fan, I saw most parts of the match and shared similar sentiments on the quality of umpiring. But to say that India lost the Test only because of poor umpiring is hard to digest. On the last day, our team which boasts of such cricketers as Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Yuvraj Singh among others could not bat for 70 overs. It shows that besides poor decisions, it was a batting collapse that contributed to the loss at Sydney. Says Pradeep Magazine of the Hindustan Times “Despite all the wrongs done to them on the field, India could have still salvaged a draw and been in a much stronger position to take a high moral ground and tell the umpires and the Australians of what they thought of them”

Also, I think the media is wrong when it says that Bucknor holds a grudge against India. The argument presented by the press is that the umpire, on numerous occasions, has repeated his mistake. To substantiate this point, it has been repeatedly stated in several debates (such as The Big Fight on NDTV 24X7) that an ICC enquiry found Bucknor guilty of incompetence during the 2007 World Cup final. However, there has been no official enquiry which can prove that Buckor bears a grudge against India or any other team. Hence, to say that an umpire of this stature, who has officiated in over a 100 matches, bears ill will towards a team is false.
In addition, a leading Hindi news channel Aaj Tak, in one of its programmes committed a factual error. The anchor said that Steve Bucknor is a Be-Imaan (cheat). This is a very serious charge as it questions his integrity. And before making such a sweeping statement, one must take into cognisance the age factor: Bucknor is 61 years old. He may be past his prime but there is no evidence to suggest that he is a cheat. This is yet another example of the media getting its facts wrong.

In the aftermath of this controversy, the ICC replaced Bucknor, who was to officiate in the third test at Perth. The Times of India, in its January 9, 2008 edition, carried a front page story titled “India wins Sydney test” with reference to this development. In its editorial the newspaper writes “The ICC has hit the right buttons by initiating action against those who were on duty at Sydney. They bungled and an exciting Test match ended in a mess.” In a country where cricket has achieved cult status, the media ought to have acted in a mature manner. This decision by the ICC was not a victory for India. Instead, it was a sad day for the game of cricket. And inspite of being aware of Bucknor’s sloppy umpiring in the past, why didn’t the Indian cricket board appeal to the ICC to replace him before the start of this series? The board owes an explanation to not only its players, but to millions of cricket lovers in the country.

In conclusion, it was an episode that saw a high quality Test match being reduced to a mere controversy. What was even more appalling was the coverage by the Indian media which was mediocre, to say the least. Instead of being jingoistic about this issue, it could have shown a sense of maturity.