'Captain cool' Arjuna Ranatunga who is due to appear before a code of conduct hearing by match referee Peter van der Merwe at Adelaide tomorrow - Australia Day - before the England-Australia Carlton and United one-day game has been accused, convicted and condemned even before he could face 'judge' Van de Merwe.
Writers here who have been giving the team hell, have prejudged the issue and are provoking the match referee to take action against Ranatunga.
But knowing the calibre of the former South African captain, who has immense experience as match referee and who has previously been in highly explosive situations, will I am sure act fair.
One writer goes on to say that Ranatunga should be suspended for the rest of the tour following his disgraceful behaviour during the Muralitharan calling incident at the Adelaide Oval.
This writer goes on to say that Ranatunga shattered ICC code of conduct regulations 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4, a clarification of laws 42.1 and 42.13 governing unfair play.
Another writer who has been a virulent critic of the Sri Lankans, says that Ranatunga deserves to have the book thrown at him in tomorrow's hearing in Adelaide.
He goes on to say that if Ranatunga is not suspended, the laws of cricket and the spirit for which they stand are not worth a cracker. He further shows his animosity towards Ranatunga by saying that he touched an umpire, reacted with obvious dissent, used abusive language and engaged in unruly behaviour, all outlawed under individual clauses in cricket's code of conduct laws.
This writer also shows his support for England captain who he quotes of having said: 'No matter whether you think the chucking decision is right you shut your mouth and get on with the game'.
How Stewart shouldered one of the Sri Lankan batsmen when England were losing was obvious to all. Why he was not summoned before the match referee is mysterious. The bad words he used on Hashan Tillekeratne when England were losing the one-off test in England is history now. Stewart apparently likes to revel in playing the baby act.
However in this unfair influencing act by the two writers, Ranjit Fernando, manager of the Sri Lankan contingent has also been playing the role of diplomat with great aplomb.
Fernando says that as far as he is concerned, Ranatunga conducted himself with decorum and says that in the situation the captain was placed in, he really doesn't know if anyone else could have done better.
The manager also said that heated clashes between Stewart, Ranatunga, Darren Gough and Roshan Mahanama over the tactics used by the Sri Lankan batsmen when running between the wickets, were those that happen in a tight one-day game.
Now that the writers here have prejudged the issue and are apparently trying to sway the match referee, I would like to give my views on the matter too.
There is no doubt that the action of Emerson in calling Muralitharan provoked the Sri Lankan captain and all the players. Being the leader of the team Ranatunga had to stand by his men and guide them all the way. And that is what he did. To think that he was going to lead his men off the field and abandon the tour was story telling. He was only taking his men near the fence to seek guidance from the Sri Lankan officials as to how he should go on from there or what tactics he should adopt in the situation which to say the least was explosive.
Ranatunga acted under sudden provocation. That is what the match referee must consider first. If in doubt, then as is being done in cricket, the benefit of the doubt must go in this instance to Ranatunga. If that happens no one will fault match referee Peter van der Merwe.