The value of being a "profile player"

There is little doubt the if viewed dispassionately, Sachin Tendulkar’s reaction to being sawed off on 99 amounted to dissent. He first indicated to the umpire that he’d missed the ball, then walked away, then when he found from the English players’ reactions that the umpire had ruled in their favor, he looked up in surprise, threw his head back and let it sink in. He then walked away leaving nobody in any doubt that he disagreed with the call. It was only towards the end of this that his innate courtesy began to take over and by the time he had begun to walk back, he was Ok.

It is here that his reputation and his standing in the game came to his rescue. If he’d been say Gautam Gambhir reacting like that, Roshan Mahanama would have definitely hauled him up. But he’s Tendulkar and like every other player in the game, he has a reputation. Sreesanth and Nel have poor reputations i suppose, Shoaib has an iffy reputation, the ugly Australian tag hurts Australia, Michael Atherton is forever associated with dirt in the pocket, Ganguly with tardy overrates as captain. Ganguly’s is infact an interesting case. There was a time in the early years of this decade when Match referees used to watch him like a hawk. Then came a bit of a lull and he has now returned as one of the elder statesmen. Unless things get out of hand, most match referees are likely to take the view that there is little that Ganguly and Tendulkar can be advised about dissent.

It points to the few things –

1. That match referees, especially in the matter of penalizing players have become less controversial and consequently better at their jobs.
2. Teams have begun to understand the referee system better. For example, India have said nothing in the press about the umpiring. A few years ago, there would have been some indiscreet comments by an Indian captain or coach, or for that matter any captain or coach in the face of some of the rough calls. Instead, what we’ve seen this time is India having a “quiet word” about the “standard of umpiring” with the referee.

So all in all there seems to be better communication between the match managers and the teams. Things did get out of hand in the Test series and to their credit Vaughan, Dravid and Dennis Lindsay settled it exactly the way it needed to be. Sreesanth got fined for shoulder barging and he deserved it. In this second ODI Collingwood got fined for slow overrates and the rules suggested that England deserved it too.

All in all, in contrast to last years Pakistan series with headstrong characters like Darrell Hair and Inzamam Ul Haq who managed to make a pigs breakfast out of things, this time around all concerned have been sensible.

Most tellingly, Simon Taufel’s comment about being more upset about his LBW decision against Tendulkar at Trent Bridge because Tendulkar was a “profile player” was telling. It suggests that umpires and referees are not going to be wooden in their implementation of the playing conditions. Its a fine balance, and i think that the umpires and referees have got it right.

This is not to suggest that Tendulkar was not guilty of dissent. I suspect that if you lined up the ICC panel of referees, they would be evenly split in their judgement in the matter.

Its just that refereeing has evolved and seems to reach some maturity as referees become more and more experienced.