The cricket controversy has continued unabated in the last 24 hours so I figured an update was worthwhile. One of the umpires has been stood down for the next match after pressure from the Indian Cricket Board. It’s important to know that that board represents (don’t quote me) 70% of the TV viewing audience in the world. They have some weight, which is giving this whole problem more to deal with.
A couple of articles I read this morning were well written and agreed with my opinion. Two factors I enjoy in articles…
Michael Epis says, “when the Australians stand at the crease when they edge the ball to first slip and appeal when the batsmen is clearly not out — well, why then would you believe anything they say?” He gets bonus points for using the word heroes in describing Ponting’s team with his tongue in his cheek.
Philip Bond continues that line of thought and writes the best paragraph I’ve read about the situation. “If a player is dishonest about nicking the ball, why should we imagine he is honest about grassing it? These are not interpretations of cricket, they are interpretations of the truth. The line is distinct. Either we play cricket for the game, in which case we walk, or we play for ourselves, in which case we don’t.”
This idea challenges those who say these players are professionals and must do everything they can to preserve their position in the team. You may be a professional, but you are a cheating professional. I wonder what their opinion of drug taking in baseball is. It must be justified, right?