Absurdity, the name of the game!

ik Pandya and KL Rahul (right) were pulled out of the Indian cricket team after their controversial appearance on Koffee with Karan went on air

It's an old yarn, but let's revisit it. This is how cricket can be explained to a foreigner who knows nothing about the game: "You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. "Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. "When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. "When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.

"When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!" Whoever thought of this explanation is a genius. It's funny but true, just like the functioning of the game in India at the moment. With apologies to all the genuine people who wanted to see a better run game after the spot fixing controversy rocked the Indian Premier League in 2013, it cannot be said that cricket is on a better wicket than before in terms of administration.

Yes, some of the men who ran cricket were arrogant, stubborn, glued to their seats. Yes, there was a need for greater transparency, but administration has now been dented with some of the Justice Lodha recommendations that later turned into orders. If things were steady at the top, we wouldn't have to witness the ridiculous scenario involving Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul. The three-match one-day international series in Australia that did not feature Pandya and Rahul due to their utterances on Koffee with Karan, is over and done with, but the duo is still not part of the Indian team. The Committee of Administrators (CoA) insisted then that their absence from the series was not part of the suspension.

When Diana Edulji disagreed with Vinod Rai's recommendation of a two-match suspension, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court. So while the Supreme Court appoints its Ombudsman, Pandya and Rahul are left wondering when they play for their country next. The out-in-the-open conflict between Edulji and Rai is distasteful. It was particularly absurd when Rai directed BCCI CEO Rahul Johri to start the process of selecting a new coach for the women's team by a panel consisting Kapil Dev, Anshuman Gaekwad and Shantha Rangaswamy, even as there was a different view from Edulji, who felt Ramesh Powar should continue as coach till the end of the New Zealand tour. They also differed on the sexual harassment allegations involving Johri.

Edulji wanted immediate suspension, while Rai wanted a decision through an independent committee. While the average cricket lover believes there is so much more the Supreme Court-appointed CoA could do for the betterment of Indian cricket, it is utterly puzzling as to why the Committee has not been boosted with replacements for Ramachandra Guha and Vikram Limaye. Apparently CoA lawyers told the Supreme Court in a hearing last year that there was no need for replacements. We don't hear of many initiatives taken by the CoA/BCCI that will bring a smile to the faces of cricket followers. For example, I would have loved to see the BCCI react swiftly to the news of their former player - Baroda's Jacob Martin - who is on life support following a road accident.

Yes, the BCCI granted R5 lakh towards the former India player's treatment, but they could have done much more, considering it is a life-and-death situation. It is important to underline that the amount sent to Martin's family is nothing out of the ordinary. Every player who has figured in 10 or more first-class matches is entitled to the amount from the Board's medical benevolent fund. Never before has the Board been in such good financial health, so why can't swift decisions be taken for the benefit of former players who have made hefty contributions to Indian cricket's legacy? The past international umpires can do with some better financial aid. Apart from R22,500 as monthly pension, they are also covered for hospitalisation. They'd be happier with a raise in pension that will help them tide over their non-hospital expenses. After all, one doesn't get hospitalised for every illness. Probably, the Board doesn't believe the umpires deserve an upgrade in pension.

But on the other hand, they feel the national selectors deserved a R20-lakh bonus for their good choices that helped India beat Australia in all formats on their recent tour. More conservative administrators would have considered the fact that the selectors were given a hike in August (R90 lakh from R60 lakh) while chief selector MSK Prasad's R80-lakh-per-annum package was raised to R1 crore. The CoA/Board cannot be accused of transparency, but there are oddities and examples of absurdity that you will find hard to explain to an administrator of another sport. And he/she doesn't necessarily have to be a cricket illiterate.

mid-day's group sports editor Clayton Murzello is a purist with an open stance. He tweets @ClaytonMurzello Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com.

Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates