BCCI pegs Kotla defence on a procedural loophole

NEW DELHI: The confidence repeatedly being voiced by officials of the Indian cricket board (BCCI) and the Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) that the Ferozeshah Kotla may escape a ban on international matches despite match referee Alan Hurst describing it as "unfit" in his report has generally been attributed to the clout BCCI enjoys in international cricket.
However, there is more to it than that.
According to sources, BCCI believes they have a strong legal ground to question the abandonment of the fifth ODI between India and Sri Lanka on December 27.
The basis for this belief lies in the fine print of the "standard One-Day International match playing conditions" laid down by the International Cricket Council (ICC). The sources pointed out that these regulations clearly stipulate that if the match referee after consulting both captains and the umpires finds that the two captains are unwilling to resume a match stopped due to a bad pitch, on-field umpires must examine two options before they decide to abandon the match.
The first of these options is to see whether play can continue on the same pitch after repairs to it. However, this can only be done if "there has been malicious damage to a non-crucial part of the pitch". This obviously did not apply in this case, since no malicious damage had been done to the pitch.
The next option to be examined by the umpires is "whether the alternative pitch can be used". Only if both these options are ruled out by the umpires must they take the third one, which is abandoning the match.
However, the sources point out, the procedure followed by Hurst was quite different, as his own report reveals.
Here's what Hurst's report said on the issue: "At the edge of the ground I spoke with president DCCA Mr Arun Jaitley, DDCA treasurer Mr Narinder Batra, BCCI honorary secretary Mr Srinavasan, DCCA vice-president Mr Chetan Chauhan and other local officials. I was asked whether another prepared pitch on the square could be substituted. I went to the square with Mr Chauhan to look at the option, which had been partially prepared as back-up prior to the game. Although reasonably hard, it was quite heavily, but unevenly grassed. In keeping with the Playing Conditions, I then spoke with the captains about this option. Both gave emphatic negatives."
This, the sources maintain, shows that the match referee consulted the captains rather than leaving the decision of shifting the match to an adjoining pitch to the on-field umpires as the playing conditions actually stipulate.
Hence, they maintain, the abandonment was effectively violative of the ICC's own regulations, a fact which they are confident will prevent the ICC from imposing a ban on Kotla. This, the sources said, has been communicated to the ICC in the BCCI's written reply to the international body's notice on Kotla.
This could also explain why ICC president David Morgan seemingly spoke out of turn the other day when he said: "I'm not at all sure if a ban would be appropriate in this case."
If the ICC's verdict does go against Kotla, the BCCI is confident it can file a successful appeal. "But seeing the loopholes in the match referee's report, we are sure the ICC will look into it," the sources added.