Tony Becca, Contributing Editor

AS A batsman, Ranjan Madugalle, with a Test average of 29.40 from 21 Test matches and as dashing as he may have been, was no great shakes.

As the senior ICC match referee, however, as the chairman of the ICC's match referees panel, the ever-smiling Sri Lankan has been outstanding and as the chairman of the ICC's disciplinary committee dealing with the charges against Inzamam-ul-Haq, he was magnificent.

First off, under Madugalle's guidance, the hearing lasted just over one day and, secondly, he came up with two good rulings - one, that Inzamam, the captain of Pakistan, was not guilty of ball tampering, and two, that Inzamam was, to a point, guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and therefore had to pay a price for that, albeit a small one of suspension from four one-day matches.

For those who do not remember, Pakistan were accused of ball-tampering during the recent Test match against England at The Oval and of bringing the game into disrepute when they refused to take the field on two occasions after an interruption late on the fourth day, thus causing umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove to abandon the match.

Also impressive

What was also impressive by Madugalle was that in handing down his verdict he pulled no punches as to why he came to his decision.

"The ICC's submission on my role is based on the Laws of the Game, in particular Law 42.2 which states 'the umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play'. I cannot accept the ICC's legal submission. My function is to form my own view of whether there was ball-tampering in breach of the Laws of the Game.

"There is nothing in the Code of Conduct which confines my role in the manner suggested by the ICC. On the contrary, paragraph D8 (c) of the code says that it is the role of the referee to 'investigate and adjudicate upon allege breaches of the rules of conduct notified to him'.

"There is, in my view, a distinction between the umpires being the sole judges of events on the field of play (so that the referee and an adjudicator cannot revoke a decision to change the ball, or to award penalty runs) and the hearing of the disciplinary charge. If such a charge is brought, my role is to determine the facts and decide accordingly.

"Indeed, it would be very odd, and very unfair to a player, were I obliged to find guilty a player who is the subject of a serious disciplinary charge and then punish him, even if I am satisfied on all the evidence that he is not guilty, but where I cannot say the umpires were perverse.

"The ICC was unable to draw to my attention to any previous decision in which the role of a referee or an adjudicator was limited in the way the ICC suggests."

And then he explained why the reasons for his verdict.

"Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation of ball-tampering (it is an allegation of cheating), I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is sufficiently cogent evidence that the fielding team had changed the condition of the ball.

"In my judgement, the marks were as consistent with normal wear and tear and with the ball being pitched into the rough and contact with cricket equipment, as they are with deliberate human intervention. Furthermore, although of course paragraph E7 recognises that there can be cases where no specific fielder can be identified as having altered the condition of the ball, it is striking that with all the technology available for modern-day coverage of a Test match, there is no evidence of any fielder acting in any suspicious manner.

"If, as the umpires told us, the ball was in an acceptable condition after the 52nd over, it is, in my view, highly unlikely that the condition of the ball could have been changed so substantially thereafter by human action within a short period of play without some suspicious conduct by a fielder being noticed by an umpire, television camera, or a third party.