Nothing official about it

It is not for nothing that William Shakespeare is so widely quoted -- more even than Nostradamus, the Bard of Avon appeared to have anticipated the future and come up with thoughts to fit any and every context. Including the ICC.

Thus, on the subject of abuse of authority, Billy the Bard wrote that the character in question wore his power "Like a giant's robes upon a dwarfish thief".

That fits the ICC to a T -- it has, in the recent imbroglio, attempted to walk in shoes and clothing too big for it, and ended up falling flat on its silly face.

Examine the events of the last few days and you will find that at every step, the ICC and its officials had the choice of acting sensibly, or stupidly. And on every single occasion, it chose the stupid option.

Thus, when Sachin Tendulkar -- against the letter of the law -- cleaned the seam of the ball with his fingernails, the ICC's man on the spot, Mike Denness, had the option of calling the player aside during the break, asking him what he thought he was doing, and telling him firmly that any more of that would entail exemplary punishment.

But no, Denness had to flex his muscles, and show the world how tough he was. The result? He has become the subject of ridicule -- and created the unprecedented situation of not just the Indians, but also the host country, categorically telling him that he is not welcome in their midst.

His act became all the more laughable because a day later, Jacques Kallis was seen on the field doing the identical thing -- to wit, cleaning the seam with fingernail and thumb. And one day later, so was New Zealand player Craig McMillan, on day one of the second Test against Australia.

Again, in the case of Virendra Sehwag and others, the umpires on the field did not feel unduly perturbed by their appealing and so no reason to talk to them. It is possible that the match referee, whose brief is different from that governing the umpires, looked at the matter in a different, and more serious, light -- but if that were the case, again, he had the option of getting on the walkie-talkie and telling the on-field umpires to have a quiet word with the Indian players and putting a stop to such appealing.

But no, Denness needed to strap on his gunbelt and prove that he had the quickest draw in the west. We know the result of that one, too.

Then came the showdown between the BCCI and the ICC. Again, Jagmohan Dalmiya gave the ICC the choice -- between sense, and stupidity. The ICC could have asked Denness to step down -- but that would have set a bad precedent, and therefore it was not really an option. However, the ICC could very easily have said that though Denness would be match referee for the third Test, his decisions in Port Elizabeth would be held in abeyance pending a review by a specially constituted panel. The ICC could have announced that if this panel found justice in Denness's actions, the sentence would be immediately implemented -- and by way of extra punitive action against the BCCI, a further fine would be levied on the entire team.

But no -- the ICC had to flex its muscles, and to shut the door on any form of compromise. Which it did when it said that Denness would stay, as would his decisions.

So what happens? What would have been a minor fracas has escalated into a full-blown and potentially dangerous furore. Two cricket boards have flat out told the ICC that they don't give a damn for the body, and its decisions. And in the process, they have raised a very real spectre of revolt.

If the ICC had a heart as large as its mouth, it would at least at this point have put a hand up and said, okay, maybe we messed up on this, let's go back to square one -- Denness will remain match referee, his decisions however will be referred to a panel for ratification.

And both boards would have happily complied.

But no, the ICC -- having already fallen flat on its face -- had to then rub its nose thoroughly in the muck by "officially" declaring the third Test "unofficial".

We haven't stopped laughing, yet.

The point is, neither ICC CEO Malcolm Speed, nor ICC chairman Malcolm Gray, have the power to unilaterally declare a Test unofficial. A decision of that magnitude has to be ratified by the ICC executive committee. Which means a proposal to declare the Centurion Test unofficial has to be put before the committee, for voting.

And surprise, surprise, guess who is on the committee? Why, among others, India and South Africa.

That is two votes against the Test being declared unofficial. Further, India -- as has been proved time and again -- has enormous influence among other member nations. Pakistan has already come out in support of the Indian stance (and why not, since the PCB has suffered equally at the hands of the ICC's tame hatchetmen), Sri Lanka's backing is automatic, as is that of Bangladesh. Similarly, South Africa has its own friends among the Test-playing nations -- and when push comes to shove, no country will openly oppose the Indian and South African boards in tandem.

Ergo, here is what the near future will bring -- a vote, and a defeat for Speed and Gray.

And with it, the very real possibility that the two countries could then point to this defeat as an expression, by the member countries, of lack of confidence in the ICC chairman and CEO, and demand their resignation.

And all this for why? Because ego -- and a vengeful mentality -- pushed those worthies into a needless confrontation. It is no secret that Gray in particular has no love lost for Dalmiya, dating back to the days when the latter was ICC chairman.

The mistake Gray made -- and continues to make -- is that in order to settle personal scores, he took on a cricket establishment. And not an ordinary one either -- India contributes between 70-80 per cent of the money the ICC earns. Heck, even when the last World Cup -- the ICC's biggest money-spinner -- was held in England, four of five lead sponsors, and several of the associate sponsors, were Indian companies.

Ironically, on the day the excreta hit the ceiling fan, Malcolm Speed no less was in India -- to negotiate with the government and the board to permit the ICC to conduct the next edition of the knockout tournament in India. Again, why these repeated visits (remember that Gray had earlier come here on a similar mission) to India in this regard? Because the ICC knows that this is one sure way of ensuring that the tournament turns an enormous profit.

The ICC could have sensibly kept all this in mind, before dusting off its peashooter and letting fly -- but no, it opted to flex its muscles.

Have you ever known of a dictator -- or dictatorial body -- that did not come to a sticky end?

The Mike Denness controversy -- complete coverage

India's tour of South Africa: Complete coverage