ICC’s treatment of Benn puzzling


IT IS NOT enough to label West Indies and Barbados off-spinner Sulieman Benn a “repeat offender”.

Everyone watching the game saw South African fast bowler Dale Steyn spit in Benn’s direction. Steyn’s actions went far beyond the rules, and the spirit of the game, regardless of provocation.

Provocation is part of the game, e.g. the French captain (last World Cup) who butt an Italian player for insulting his mother.

In boxing, could you legitimately spit at your opponent? What if Steyn had decided to kick Benn, rather than spit at him?

Previously, a white South African could spit on a black South African, or do worse, with impunity.

Steyn ought to have been seriously reminded that that was a by-gone era. He could have been properly arrested, charged and criminally prosecuted for breach of the peace, assault, and so on.

To ban Benn, while Steyn forfeits a single match fee is wrong.  Similarly, how can Roach forfeit half a match fee for a legal delivery?

In the circumstances, the ICC’s treatment of Benn and Roach is unfair and disproportionate.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here