The Indian board's no-ball

It's finally official. The International Cricket Council will reopen a case that should have been comprehensively decided more than two months ago. Sourav Ganguly, the Indian captain, could not get his team to bowl their overs quickly enough in the fourth one-day international against Pakistan at Ahmedabad. Ganguly was slapped with a six-match ban. The case was open-and-shut, this was not his first time. Ganguly should have worn the fine and ban, and got on with life.

Instead the board and the Indian captain set off on a troubled path that has ended in the matter being put before arbitration. At first, it seemed Ganguly had accepted the decision Chris Broad, the match referee, handed down. He even stepped out of the selection meeting to pick the team for the remaining one-dayers, accepting the fact that he would play no further part in the series, and handed over the reins to Rahul Dravid, his deputy.

Then the BCCI stepped in. At first it merely seemed that the Indian board was appealing the ban to be seen to be doing the right thing - standing by its captain. Then the matter went before Michael Beloff QC, the chairman of the ICC's code of conduct commission, who was appointed the appeals commissioner in this case. He ruled that there was no need for a further interview, and that the Indian board could put its case forward in writing. This happened, Ganguly was found to be in the wrong, and the six-match ban stood. Section 11 J of the code of conduct is unambiguous: "The decision of the appeals commissioner shall be final and binding." At least at this point the Indian board should have backed off. But having gone down the road of defiance, there was no backing off.

It is believed that the Indian board are now contending that the letter of the law pertaining to the sections that govern slow over-rates, does not specifically state that a captain can be banned for slow over-rates. The Indian board is arguing that that there is no specific mention of a ban being imposed on the captain in the event of overs not being completed in time. Either this is the latest smoke-and-mirror tactic, or the board has just got it wrong. The rule governing slow over-rates clearly states that the captain will attract a C1 charge ('contrary to the spirit of the game'). This works in conjunction with the rule that stipulates that repeating an offence within a 12-month period automatically upgrades a level 1 offence to level 2, and similarly level 2 to level 3. It's worth remembering that Ganguly has been pulled up no less than four times in a 12-month period. This would suggest that the six-match ban was not out of place at all.

But the board has a responsibility even beyond this. It is the spirit of the law, not the letter, that the board should be going by. There is no place in cricket for unwarranted time delays, no-one benefits - and least of all television channels who pump millions into the game - and the only way to keep time is to enforce bans. Clearly fines do not work. In this litigious age, there will be no limit to the extent to which decisions can be contested, should one go down that road.

What is to stop a batsman who has been wrongly given out for 0 to sue the umpire and the ICC for loss of earnings if he had a pre-existing contract with a sponsor that paid him per run scored?

One thing, though, is fairly clear. Even if the ICC uses the Ganguly episode as a chance to have another look at their rules, code of conduct, and processes, to eliminate any loopholes, and the future occurrence of the same scenario, there can be no retrospective action. Ganguly's six-match ban will have to stay. Otherwise Inzamam-ul-Haq and Graeme Smith, two captains who were banned under the same law and quietly served out their sentences, could reasonably argue that their bans need to be overturned.

A key point the Indian board should bear in mind is that the matter cannot go to an outside arbitration court unless the two parties both agree to take it there. At the moment the most that can happen is that the matter will be referred to the ICC's dispute-resolution committee. That, of course, will be in-house, and consist of members appointed by the ICC. Without the ICC, the BCCI cannot take this matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

When Ganguly was pulled up by Clive Lloyd, and successfully appealed the decision in front of Tim Castle, the then-appeals commissioner, the ICC bit the bullet and accepted the verdict. And a look at the evidence suggests they would have had a very strong case had they wanted to take the matter to a higher level. They accepted the decision of the appeals commissioner, and life went on.

The Indian board now needs to do the same. For a family where the son drags the father to court to sort out a squabble can never be a happy one.