Anderson-Jadeja spat fuelled India’s ambition

The BCCI’s disagreement with ICC match referee David Boon’s in fining Ravindra Jadeja 50 per cent of his match fees for the altercation with James has strong validity. There is little merit however cricketing or otherwise in appealing against the decision.Unhappiness over the fine against Jadeja should be expressed. Protest in itself makes a strong point. But prolonging the controversy could take the focus away from the primary task on hand, which is to win the series.

To see it in perspective, after the England cricket team put counter-charges against Jadeja, there were two parties to the dispute so both were under purview of bad conduct.

Referee Boon, after hearing both Jadeja and Anderson and their battery of supporters and lawyers, toned down the charge against the Indian all-rounder from Level 2 to Level 1 and fined Jadeja 50 per cent of his match fee.

While the Indian cricket establishment’s miff is understandable after all, the original complaint came from their team and England’s was almost an afterthought — this must be seen in the context of the ICC’s position vis-a-vis such disputes.Anything that brings disrepute to the game is punishable according to the ICC’s code of conduct. This includes retaliatory words or gestures. So while Jadeja may have only been reactive, he still comes under the purview of code of conduct.

Boon concluded that while Jadeja was not guilty of a Level 2 offence, his actions were “against the spirit of the game.’’This might seem harsh if Anderson was the agent provocateur. But the overarching principle in play in the code of conduct, as I understand it, is that it has to be preventive first.The remedial or curative aspect is not insignificant, but the essential need is to send out a firm message that NO kind of ill-behaviour is acceptable; not even if the fracas was started by somebody else.

The argument follows then why was the case Anderson not heard simultaneously, if not earlier, since it was lodged first. This is a poser that traverses the tit-for-tat path rather than a complete and logical disposal of the case.Chronologically the charges against Anderson were filed earlier. But the time restrictions that prevented these being heard before the case against Jadeja are not adverse to India’s position as may seem.

Anderson faces more grave (Level 3) charges. These go beyond the mien of just the match referee and requires an ICC appointed Judicial Commission. This is now in place (with Gordon Lewis heading it) and has summoned the player on August 1. My reading of the situation is that with Jadeja being docked 50 per cent of his match fee, Anderson will inevitably cop a bigger punishment: perhaps forced to miss out on the remaining two Tests of the series.

There would be reason for consternation in the Indian establishment as also the need to appeal if Anderson is let off lightly. But to appeal now against the fine imposed on Jadeja is like using a sten gun in a shooting gallery.The Anderson-Jadeja spat I believe provided a trigger for Dhoni’s team to become more resilient and more ambitious to prove a point. As we know, a backlash provoked by anger resulting from insult is not unknown in sport.

Cricket’s most dramatic manifestation of this syndrome came in 1976, when the West Indies landed in England: Captain Tony Greig boasted he would make Clive Lloyd’s team grovel, the West Indians sniffed racial overtones England were beaten to bits. Later on, the West Indies became one of the greatest teams in the history of the game.That would be a great objective to emulate. India have used their anger wisely so far. The imperative need now is to narrow their focus on winning the series, not dissipate energy on minor gains.