EDITORIAL

The International Cricket Council (ICC) is tasked with protecting the virtue of the game of cricket, its code of conduct and spirit. From time to time, that means disobedient players will find themselves running afoul of the law.

However, recent punishments against West Indies players during the just concluded Test match series against England deserve scrutiny because of the baffling nature of the decisions taken.

As more details emerge about the incident between Shannon Gabriel and Joe Root’s encounter in St. Lucia, it leaves one more puzzled than enlightened. During the last Test match, an exchange occurred between Gabriel and Root, in which Root’s response was picked up verbatim by the microphones embedded in the stumps, but Gabriel’s original comment was not. Root’s comments were widely reported in the press, and based on the tone they appeared to suggest that Gabriel made a homophobic remark.

Since then, Gabriel has apologised and clarified exactly what he said, but as mentioned before we are left shaking our heads in confusion.

If Gabriel’s account is true – that he told Root that he (Gabriel) “had no issues with that” (being gay), and the onfield umpires only warned Gabriel for what he said – then why did it escalate to the point that Gabriel received demerit points to his previous tally, which resulted in a four-match ban and 75 per cent of his match fee? The problem here is that the stump camera did not pick up what Gabriel said, but the ICC officials determined, apparently after the fact, that the matter warranted further punishment after the English press addressed the issue.

There is no room for sledging, inappropriate, abusive, homophobic or racist remarks in the game. However, it is concerning that the ICC, without the benefit of clear, stump microphone recordings, can issue demerit points to a player after going back on a warning they had previously issued.

Even more confounding was Jason Holder’s punishment for his slow over rate in the second Test. Arguably it is a problem that the West Indies captain must deal with, since has been penalised before for the exact crime. However, in this instance, it was downright baffling to hear that a captain whose team had won the match in three days instead of the allotted five was judged guilty of slow over rates. How much faster did they want the match to finish?

We also must focus on the management of West Indies cricket and how quickly it seems we accept these punishments without question.

The ICC is free to dispense judgement as it sees fit; however, there is a facility, as with the regular court systems, through which those judgements can be challenged. It is not impossible to do so and win, as was seen in the case of South African bowler Kagiso Rabada, whose initial two-match ban instituted by the ICC was overturned after legal appeal last year. Though West Indies have flattered to deceive so many times in the past, this team did something not many expected from them – to beat England in a Test match and to recover the Wisden trophy. As such, its management has to protect them even more now than ever.