The BCCI withdrawing its complaint against Steve Smith and Peter Handscomb only a few hours after lodging this with the ICC last week may have seemed like a farcical flip-flop, but I think it was the right thing to do.

The CEO of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, had specially flown to India to resolve the DRS controversy as things threatened to spin out of control. For BCCI to not extend a reconciliatory hand through its CEO Rahul Johri would have been churlish.

Sutherland’s first response was gruff and combative, but the retraction from a hostile position was sensible. Given the power structure of the sport, there was more to be lost than gained.

To smoke the peace pipe was pragmatic. For this, both sides had to temper moral umbrage. To imperil the series was senseless. The controversy had to be defused quickly for the future of the sport in the long term.

In the short term, the focus had to be quickly shifted back to the current series. The right signal had to be sent to players from both teams that what had happened at Bengaluru had to be confined to history.

By common consensus, this has been an outstanding series yet, the controversy in Bengaluru notwithstanding. Two Tests played yet have produced riveting contests, highlighted with superb performances by players from either side.

It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that not since the 2001 series against Australia has there been such a tense, complex and thoroughly enjoyable battle for supremacy. Indeed, in many ways, it has given Test cricket the kiss of life in India.

The joint statement issued by the two Boards invoked “the spirit of cricket” in which the remaining two Tests should be played. This is a clarion call that must be heeded: for the sake of the sport, fans and players themselves.

There were moments in Bengaluru particularly when it appeared that competitive zeal was spilling over into excessive gamesmanship. There is always scope for byplay in the middle, but it is important this is kept under control.

While banter and some needling can be of some psychological help and adds to the drama for fans, incessant taunting or grotesque mocking of a rival’s style of play/expressions mars the fair name of the game.

That said, I believe the ICC should have kept itself independent of the accord reached between the two Boards in the DRS matter and taken cognisance of what was a clear transgression of the law by Steve Smith or Peter Handscomb or both.

While it may be that match referee Chris Broad did not pursue the matter officially, there was a case for the ICC to take suo moto notice of what had happened at Bengaluru to assert its authority and control over the sport.

Smith had admitted he had been wrong to look towards his dressing room when dithering over where he should ask for a review, while Handscomb had tweeted that it was he who had prodded his captain to this end.

Individually or together, this was a breach of law. A `brain fade’, as Smith described his condition that led to the controversial act, is perfectly understandable in taut situations, but is not without consequences.

For instance, a person driving a car with his mind occupied elsewhere may break a traffic light because of a `brain fade’ but is not exempt from action being taken against him if he is caught.

The crux, as I see it, is not so much about the intent and integrity of Smith and/or Handscomb. Rather of making the laws of the game paramount for practitioners of the sport from all countries.

With what degree of righteousness can the ICC now adjudicate if something similar transpires in another match?

Ironically, this incident happened in the same week that the ICC had proposed to the MCC the introduction of red cards and other punishments to be served to erring players.

Unfortunately, when the opportunity arose to set an example, the ICC chickened out.