Date-stamped : 19 Jun96 - 22:16 19 June 1996 Disgruntled Illingworth vows to stay on TCCB ignore Silk`s refer- ence as chairman of selectors is fined and reprimanded over Mal- colm comments, reports Christopher Martin-Jenkins AN affair which might more justly and wisely have been knocked smartly on the head by a private reprimand and a brief, decisive statement of public admonition ended yesterday, after weeks of speculation, with the chairman of the England selectors being fined #2,000 by the Test and County Cricket Board for the criti- cism of Devon Malcolm in a newspaper serialisation last month of his book One Man Committee. Ray Illingworth, one of England`s most successful captains, who came out of retirement and gave up his media work to become chairman in 1994 for a salary of #25,000, was also ordered to pay #500 towards the costs of the hearing and his own legal fees. In addition, he was reprimanded for breaches of confidence on selection matters. Despite a personal written character reference on Illingworth`s behalf by the chairman of the board, Dennis Silk, he was found guilty at a hearing of the TCCB`s discipline committee, held at the Inner Temple in London under the chairmanship of the Welsh QC Gerard Elias, of prejudicing the interests of cricket on both counts and on the Malcolm comments also of bringing the game into disrepute. In a statement, the TCCB said: "The committee took into account the mitigating circumstances put before them and in particu- lar the exceptional service Mr Illingworth has given to the game at county and international level. This resulted in a lower penalty than would otherwise have been imposed." Illingworth has 28 days to decide whether or not to appeal to the Cricket Council. Although utterly chagrined by the decision, he vowed to continue as chairman until September, when he will be retiring anyway after five more Test matches and three one- day internationals. In view of the fact that Malcolm was ex- onerated by the board`s discipline committee, despite having broken his tour contract by making fierce critcisms of Illing- worth in a series of newspaper articles, it would be surprising if he were not to contest the apparent injustice. On the other hand, this would merely prolong the embarrassment. Relations between Illingworth and the board, the team and his fellow selectors will all have an element of uneasiness now. In particular his relationship will continue to be difficult with Mike Atherton, the captain whom he fined, by a great irony, the same sum of #2000 after the `dirt on the ball` episode during the 1994 Lord`s Test against South Africa. Snubbed again by the peculiar organisation of which he is titular head, Silk is unlikely to want to remain chairman much longer Illingworth may be said to have started the dispute with Malcolm by publicly criticising his attitude early on the tour of South Africa. But it was not for this that he was being tried and the chairman, who lost his role as England manager after the tour, was unhappy that the TCCB`s official statement on Malcolm`s breach of contract did not include his denial that he verbally abused his bowler. Snubbed again by the peculiar organisation of which he is titular head, Silk is unlikely to want to remain chairman much longer. Once again it is the board and their hopelessly muddled mode of governance, allowing all manner of political chicanery, which come out worst from this business. Having appointed Illingworth as chairman in 1994, then promoted him as manager when they pensioned off Keith Fletcher as manager half-way through his term, only to demote him again this spring to make way for David Lloyd, the counties and their exe- cutives at Lord`s might, and should, have spared him this public embarrassment. He was wrong to allow his book to be published whilst he was still in office. Technically, too, he breached the regulation that no-one under the board`s jurisdiction should "disclose any matter that is confidential to the board" - in this case which selector favoured which player at certain times. Derbyshire and Lancashire officials forced the hearing, Der- byshire on Malcolm`s behalf, Lancashire because they felt selec- tion disclosures compromised the England captain. In fact both Illingworth and Atherton had explained to informed cricket correspondents what had happened and who had supported whom. Neither, during the course of their strange relationship, has been averse to letting it be known which way the wind is blowing. No amount of regulations will prevent disputes in a high-profile sport when personal reputations are at stake. If this is one les- son from this unnecessary prologue to tommorrow`s second Test, the other is that the con- stitution of the new board needs to give a much clearer indication of who has power over whom. It should also empower directors of the board to take disciplinary action when necessary without recourse to committees. Source :: Electronic Telegraph (http.//www.telegraph.co.uk) Contributed by Shash (shs2@*.cwru.edu)