Banning Kagiso Rabada Highlights ICC’s Duplicity; Exposes Biasness

Even if you don’t necessarily feel for Kagiso Rabada, you’ve got to feel for South Africa. South Africa have been on the back-foot, especially where their recent cricket stands. Have they been comprehensive? No.
Have they been prolific with the bat?
The answer is ‘No’.
Have they literally stamped their authority on the game, an exhibition of which the Proteas display with candid immensity?
If you remove AB De Villiers from the picture, the answer is again ‘No’.
It was a one-sided encounter in white-ball contests against India. If you were to put a rifle on their most incisive critics, they might reorient your appraisal of their Test triumph against India in suggesting perhaps it was bad batting that let India down.
Their only glimmer of hope- in these testing times of Amla’s vulnerability, de Kock’s injury-plagued run, the scratchiness of Dean Elgar and a Morkel who hasn’t been amidst explosive pace- has been Kagiso Rabada.
Now that Kagiso Rabada has been castigated from the rest of the series following the infamous run-in with Smith, South Africa are on their own. It hurts. It hurts bad. And especially if you consider that by banning Rabada from the rest of the series, the ICC has handed a raw deal to South Africa.
This isn’t to suggest that Kagiso Rabada is the most well-behaved cricketer of his generation.
Gentleness and warmth aren’t exactly in his books.
He doesn’t exactly extend flying kisses to batsmen whose timber he loves to disturb with an enthusiasm that borders with petulance.
Kagiso Rabada is, after all- an aggressive, fiery and a very on ‘your face’- sort of bowler.
But then, it ought to be asked, where are fast bowlers who sing praises of batsmen and shower them with send-offs drenched in lullabies? When you are on the field, you are in midst of a contest. There’s a lot at stake; Emotions are running high. The sole job of a team is to bring about the downfall of another.
That said, fast bowlers are a different animal altogether, if it could be said. They are spiked with adrenaline.
They are sons of anarchy; their job isn’t to sing hymns or recite biblical truth. Fast bowlers aren’t there to accommodate batsmen; they are there to subject batsmen to a great sense of discomfort.
They are pushed to the edge by the heat of competition.
Sagging shoulders and quiet, hush movements aren’t for them. They are in hurried commotion. A by-product of fire and molten lava.
Kagiso Rabada belongs to this new DNA of bowlers who partake in an uncompromising brand of cricket. Holding back emotions may come naturally to a Morne or Bumrah but certainly not to Kagiso Rabada.
And why should he? Do we summon the Australians to disciplinary actions when they engage in sledging?
The ICC’s verdict on Kagiso Rabada that didn’t end with fining 50 percent of his match fee sounds lame and perhaps against the spirit of competition. Especially in the context of the current series that has only just been brought alive thanks to a spell of sheer hostility by World’s No. 2 ranked bowler Kagiso Rabada.
This, in some ways, highlights the duplicity of cricket’s eminent governing body that stays mute when other contestants render harsh blows to the ‘spirit of competition.’
Why was David Warner not fined in his recent explosive exchange with de Kock? He’s no Mother Teresa of the game. At 31, isn’t he supposed to grow over cuss words?
Did the ICC take such a strong measure against Josh Hazlewood when he openly muttered the line ” who the F*cuk is the third umpire” expressing disdain on an umpire’s decision during a Test against Sri Lanka? Did that lamentation celebrate the spirit of cricket?
It’s mind-boggling to note that some of the best in the game are seldom chided by the ICC despite them becoming mouthpieces. 
McGrath produced a rather unwanted spectacle when he chastised Ramnaresh Sarwan including an expletive that involved Lara. What did the ICC do then?
If luminaries have been overlooked for showing dissent, doesn’t Kagiso Rabada deserve a fair chance considering he’s among Test cricket’s best bowler?
If you run your mind through the game’s great achievers, you’ll find the likes of Mitchel Johnson, James Anderson, Shane Warne getting away despite being sinister with the tongue.
Even if Rabada’s momentary lapse of reason, amplified by that burst of temper was to be dubbed immature, how would it be justified by banning him whilst letting others go scot-free?
Clearly, you don’t shoulder an opponent, especially when you’ve got the better of him by scalping his prized wicket. This wasn’t just a wicket. It was Smith. But how does a Marlon Samuels- who puts his feet across the table- whilst addressing a media conference get away but Rabada doesn’t when the contact might have been somewhat accidental?
How does Kieron Pollard who nearly hurls a cricket bat in something as lame as league IPL game get away and Rabada doesn’t?
This isn’t even racism. This isn’t merely subjecting a cricketer under the hammer of harsh judgement. It’s some weird cricketing equivalent of a zombie legal structure that is beyond explanation.
Dale Steyn, Kagiso Rabada’s own teammate has been the most vocal opponent of the modern game. He hasn’t been content with throbbing veins, bloodshot red eyes fuelled by temper or dismissive cold stares. He walks down the opponents and hurls abuses.
The umpires’ conveniently turn a blind eye on his ill-mannered histrionics is a mystery stranger than Bermuda Triangle’s.
At 22, Rabada isn’t a school-grade cricketer brimming with uncontrollable enthusiasm. Neither is he the calmest or mature head around. He’s, for god’s sake, a kid who’s just burst on the scene, particularly in the context of mature, seasoned athletes like Ross Taylor, Chris Gayle or MS Dhoni- all of whom have had some history if not allegiance to histrionics.
Wouldn’t stripping him off all his match fee have served just judgement? What did ICC achieve by banning him for something that may or may not have been dubious or unplanned in origin?