Playing a losing game

That India is out of the hockey world cup semifinals halfway through the tournament is not surprising. Yet this is not a fair reflection on the players, as their talent and skills were very much in evidence in the inspiring opening game against Pakistan. What is not so obvious is how the odds are stacked against our players because an apathetic administration can neither stand up for their rights when they face racist bias, nor provide them with adequate support to even know the latest rules. This is especially galling because it is the Indian team that attracts sponsorship for the international hockey federation, writes Anand Philar.

The two-match suspension of Indian forward Shivendra Singh in the ongoing hockey World Cup yet again raised the spectre of racism and colour bias at the international level while the FIH (International Hockey Federation) and its officials portray themselves as being the only saints among sinners!

Tournament director Ken Read was high-handed in deciding that there was a cause for investigation into an incident when the Pakistan team itself was dismissive about it, and his subsequent justification of suspension was unbecoming of a man holding such a responsible post. If anything, it was a vulgar display of authority and power.

That India was at the receiving end of his officious act was not just a coincidence, for our players have always been under the scanner in international events, especially after the Asia Cup final imbroglio in 1985 at Dhaka leading to the suspension of six Indian frontline players for an alleged assault on an umpire.

Thereafter, virtually at every international tournament, Indian teams have suffered at the hands of umpires whose interpretation of “dangerous play” in particular has been varied and inconsistent.

Racism at work
In the case of the Shivendra incident, the Indian forward reacted to a tackle from behind quite instinctively, by flicking his stick, which unfortunately grazed the head of Pakistani defender Fareed Ahmed, who continued to play after medication. Yet, the Indian forward fell victim to Read’s perception of “dangerous play” or as the official put it, “reckless behaviour”. It was akin to killing an ant with a sledge hammer.

The least one could say in Shivendra’s support was that there was no intention to cause bodily harm. In fact, he is one of the cleanest players. But then, FIH’s tolerance limits seem to be minimal when it comes to sub-continental players.

Two years ago, during the Olympic qualifier in Santiago, Chile, the Indian team bore the brunt of umpiring errors. They received five yellow cards in three matches, including two in the final against Britain that they lost, to miss a berth in the Beijing Olympics.

Two Indian players, Gurbaj Singh and Vikram Kanth were summoned to the hotel lobby close to midnight by tournament officials and were issued warning letters. A shell-shocked Indian team turned hesitant in tackles and their induced meekness cost them the final. In contrast, other teams, including Britain, indulged in body-checks with impunity to throw off the smaller built Indian players without invoking any penalty. It triggered an outburst from Indian coach Joaquim Carvalho, who wondered whether his team was being singled out for special treatment.

Carvalho has not been the only Indian coach or player frustrated and confused by such harsh rulings. His peer, Vasudevan Baskaran, felt much the same in 1996 during the Champions Trophy in Chennai. India’s key player, centre-half Md Riaz was benched for over 35 minutes on a yellow card suspension by umpire Santiago Deo for a foul on a Dutch player eight seconds into the game. The offence did not warrant such a severe penalty, and yet Deo stuck to his guns.

What is ‘dangerous play’?
Even such a basic skill like rolling the ball over a tackler’s stick has been disallowed for “dangerous play”, while umpires have never been uniform in deciding on the close dribble that the Indians are known for — as to whether or not it constitutes shielding the ball. More often than not, the Indians have been pulled up.

Likewise, in close tackles where sticks tend to make contact, Indian players have always come out second best with umpires awarding a penalty corner, if not a stroke. Yet, when an Indian forward was stick-checked, like Baljit Singh Saini was against Germany in the 1996 Olympic Games, the umpire ignored claims for a penalty stroke two minutes from the end with the teams tied 1-1. The draw scuttled India’s semi-final chances.

All these instances, along with many others, have caused considerable heartburn in the Indian camp and to an extent contributed to the lowly positions that the teams have occupied in the pecking order. More importantly, such incidents have given rise to mistrust and a feeling of victimisation.

Problems at home
While pointing fingers at the FIH and the international umpiring fraternity, it would do Indian hockey some good if it can look at itself in the mirror. Part of the problems that Indian players face while playing abroad is due to their own ignorance of certain latest rules and interpretations that the FIH Rules Board keep changing at the drop of a stick as it were.

On a few occasions in the past, a noted international umpire, usually Amarjit Singh Bawa (now retired), was invited to training camps to bring the Indian players up to speed on rules, but for some reason, the practice has been discontinued.

Further, the overall standard of domestic umpiring leaves a lot to be desired. The supervision has rarely been of international quality and this has been responsible for the many instances of player indiscipline leading to ugly violence.

Like in the Aga Khan Gold Cup many years ago, players have taken law into their hands while protesting umpiring decisions, and yet have been condoned by administrators who have always been susceptible to pressure groups and vested interests. Thus, when these players participate in international tournaments, the old habits surface and they are obviously not tolerated.

Laughing stock
Given the sorry state of the Indian hockey administration, it would be futile to expect our officials to offer any worthwhile support to the players who are wronged as in the case of Shivendra. Rather, Indian officials have always been a laughing stock and a constant source of embarrassment, possessing neither communication skills nor vision nor expertise in administration.

However, the FIH has been tolerant (at times patronising) of Indian officialdom because of the crowds that our teams attract, besides lending the game the much needed variety in terms of style of play. The reality is that for all its talk, the FIH is not as much exercised over the quality of hockey that India can produce as funds it can generate through sponsorship, like the Hero Honda World Cup has demonstrated.

You would have thought that if Indian hockey succeeds in bringing in the moolah, the bias would perhaps shift from colour of the skin to the colour of paper. But if our hockey officials are themselves least bothered about getting a fair deal for our players, how can we expect anything other than what we have been seeing year after year?

(Anand Philar is a hockey writer based in Chennai)