What, exactly, does a match referee do? I ask because there seems to have been no suggestion that the acts of AB de Villiers – and, perhaps, Michael Vaughan – should be put before him for consideration.
I refer of course to the thorny issue of the cleanliness of catches.
De Villiers hardly needs a hearing – he should simply be banned for at least one Test for the most poorly concealed attempt to mislead an umpire in cricket this century. The case of Vaughan is less clear-cut. I hope I say this without bias, but I think he might genuinely have believed he picked up the chance from Hashim Amla.
If, though, he really tried to claim a catch he knew was dubious after apparently giving De Villiers an earful at lunch for his misbehaviour, our esteemed leader really must be lacking something up top – and I’m not referring to his rapidly receding hairline.
But, for reasons of fairness, if South Africa think his crime warrants the same action as that of De Villiers, I think it is only right and proper that he should have the chance to defend himself.
It seems odd that Paul Collingwood should be banned from four one-day internationals for failing to keep up with the required run-rate, yet acts far more potentially damaging to the game in the long run, do not, seemingly, warrant further investigation.
Surely deeds that could – I emphasise could – constitute cheating should come under the referee’s scrutiny? How much longer are they prepared to turn a blind eye? Over to you, Jeff Crowe.