Sacking a Junior Captain

Neither a Cricket nor a Security Decision.

    It is easy to avoid the difficult issues in South African cricket, occasionally prudent to do so and, sometimes, necessary. Raise the ladder, deny access and talk about something else. Don’t stir the emotion and animosity. In the case of the SA-Under captain who was ‘relieved’ of his position a week before the World Cup, it would be really easy to ignore it.

    But given how many people have asked, here goes: 

    Hearts of stone or a complete ignorance of world affairs would be required not to feel strong emotions about the war in Gaza. More than 24,000 people killed, many entirely innocent. It was the reason David Teeger spoke about it when he was named ‘Rising Star’ at the ABSA Jewish Achiever Awards in Johannesburg in October.

“I've been awarded this award, and yes, I am now the rising star, but the true rising stars are the young soldiers in Israel...” Teeger had said on October 22 in Johannesburg. “So, I'd like to dedicate this award to the South African family that married off one son whilst the other is still missing. And I'd like to dedicate it to the state of Israel and to every single soldier fighting so that we can live and thrive in the diaspora.”

    Strong words which he had every right, in his personal capacity, to deliver. That was confirmed by Cricket South Africa’s own disciplinary inquiry following a complaint from the Palestine Solidarity Alliance (PSA) which said Teeger’s comments were “a provocative and inflammatory political statement.”

    The South African government taking the State of Israel to the International Court of Justice with an accusation of genocide appears to have made Teeger’s position as captain of a national team untenable. The point about whether the player would be ‘safer’ on the field without the captain’s armband is a distraction, albeit an easy one to fall for. The answer is ‘no’. The answer to a different question might be ‘yes’: “Is there less chance of potentially violent protests at the Under-19 World Cup if the junior Proteas were not captained by Teeger?

   CSA’s statement (again attributed to ‘the Board’) was, on the face of it, quite clear: “We have been advised that protests related to the war in Gaza can be anticipated at the venues for the tournament. We have also been advised that they are likely to focus on the position of the SA Under-19 captain, David Teeger, and that there is a risk that they could result in conflict or even violence, including between rival groups of protestors.”

The point about Teeger having been specifically mentioned as a ‘target’ is important. If that is true, then CSA and the ICC are legally bound to follow the advice from their security consultants. Should a serious ‘incident’ take place with the tournament organisers having ignored security advice, the litigation consequences could be catastrophic.

     “CSA has a primary duty to safeguard the interests and safety of all those involved in the World Cup and must accordingly respect the expert advice of those responsible for the safety of participants and spectators,” the statement said. “In all the circumstances, CSA has decided that David should be relieved of the captaincy for the tournament. This is in the best interests of all the players, the SA U19 team and David himself.”

    The thing about security which makes it effective is that, well, it’s secret. But the men and women who do the security research and make recommendations are also aware of the importance of its veracity. They want the media to know the truth. Many decades in this job have taught me to find out, reliably, how authentic security ‘issues’ are.

    In this instance it appears that specific threats against Teeger had not reached the security team detailed to care for the teams involved in the Under-19 World Cup. His removal as captain may have been the result of political expediency. It was made crystal clear to me from two security sources that they ‘unaware of any specific threats against him.’ Perhaps CSA have received, or aware of, a threat which they have not shared with their security providers.

    None of which should condone the insensitivity of his comments which, he later said, “may have been naieve.” They were made before Israel’s invasion and the subsequent carnage. He also said they were delivered “off the cuff” and in surroundings which he believed to be “private.” The second two points are certainly evidence of naievity. What difference does he think it makes if his comments were spontaneous rather than prepared? And as Graeme Smith will attest, a national captain is never in a private room unless he or she knows and trusts every single person in it. An awards ceremony? Probably not.