COMMENT: The ICC's curious decision-making raises more questions than answers

When newly installed South African cricket captain Faf du Plessis was caught on television in Australia shining a cricket ball with a sweet in his mouth‚ the ICC's South African CEO Dave Richardson‚ himself a former Test player for South Africa‚ felt the need to cite the player after on-field umpires had ignored the incident.

When Steve Smith‚ the Australian captain‚ was caught looking for help from the dressing room before deciding whether to review his lbw decision‚ Richardson appeared to sit ‚ cossetted in his office in Dubai‚ and decide to do nothing.

In the case of Du Plessis‚ it was the Australian media‚ infamously one-eyed when it comes to touring teams playing against Australia‚ that magnified the incident from an ordinary unremarkable event - many other captains admitted they had been doing the same thing for ages - into a foul and brazen act that threatened the integrity of cricket.

In Smith's case it was India's captain Virat Kholi who expressed his outrage at the idea that the DRS system‚ which India has only recently decided‚ a tad reluctantly‚ to accept‚ should be so outrageously abused.

The difference in the ICC's reaction to these two incidents begs all sorts of questions.

Did Richardson cite Du Plessis because he‚ as a South African and ICC chief executive‚ wanted to show that he is totally unbiased towards his former team?

Did he fail to act in the case of Smith because he felt there was an element of gamesmanship in Kohli's protest?

Or did he let it be because there is still a residue of resentment within the ICC at the way the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) tried to hijack cricket a few years ago by creating a "big three'' structure within the Test arena?

In doing this‚ India rode roughshod over the ICC‚ so there is every reason to believe the ICC is still smarting.

So does its inaction in response to the Smith incident mean the ICC is happy to overlook transgressions against India in the belief that they deserve their comeuppance?

Whatever the ICC's justification for this latest reaction‚ it is going to villify Richardson to an even greater degree in the eyes of the South African cricket-supporting public‚ who already believe his action was a betrayal of his former colleagues.

As for the ICC as a whole?

Well‚ it's reputation for weak-kneed‚ lily-livered responses to real crises is already well documented; and the row in India following its lack of action in the Smith incident is escalating into something that WILL damage the integrity of cricket. - TMG Digital