Ramiz Raja’s “Permanent Fixer” Allegation Against ICC Referee Andy Pycroft Debunked by Facts

A recent explosive claim by former PCB chairman Ramiz Raja targeting ICC match referee Andy Pycroft has ignited a firestorm on social media. However, a thorough investigation into ICC regulations and official match data reveals a narrative starkly different from the allegations.

Former Pakistan captain and ex-PCB chief Ramiz Raja launched a serious accusation against seasoned International Cricket Council (ICC) match referee Andy Pycroft. Following a controversial handshake incident during the Asia Cup 2023, Raja labeled Pycroft as India’s “permanent fixer,” suggesting a deliberate bias and systematic assignment to Indian matches to provide them an unfair advantage.

But do these claims hold up to scrutiny? An objective analysis of the role of a match referee, ICC appointment protocols, and hard statistical evidence completely dismantles Raja’s narrative, exposing it as a baseless fabrication.

The Explosive Allegation: What Ramiz Raja Said

In a video that went viral across social media platforms, Ramiz Raja made his allegations without presenting any concrete evidence.

“Andy Pycroft is the favorite of Team India…. I think he is a permanent fixer for them,” Raja stated. “This is blatant, one-sided, and it should not happen on a neutral platform.”

The comments, made in the heat of a post-tournament reaction, appear more as an emotional outburst than a fact-based critique. Raja specifically claimed Pycroft had officiated in “90 games involving India,” a figure that is immediately called into question by publicly available data.

Controversial match referee “Andy Pycroft is a favourite of India. He has been the referee 90 times in India's matches” says Ramiz Raja pic.twitter.com/JdwGi54nJ5

— Ihtisham Ul Haq (@iihtishamm) September 17, 2025

Reality Check: The Limited Role of a Match Referee

The most fundamental flaw in Raja’s argument is a clear misunderstanding of a match referee’s duties.

Unlike on-field umpires, match referees have zero influence over live gameplay decisions that affect a match’s outcome. They do not adjudicate LBWs, caught-behinds, run-outs, or no-balls.

Their responsibilities are strictly off-field and administrative, including:

• Enforcing the ICC Code of Conduct for players and team officials.
• presiding over disciplinary hearings and imposing sanctions for breaches of conduct.
• Managing over-rate offences.
• Submitting post-match reports to the ICC.

The idea that an official with no control over the ball-by-ball proceedings can “fix” a match is logically inconsistent and demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge about ICC governance.

How ICC Appointments Ensure Neutrality

Raja’s insinuation that Pycroft is deliberately assigned to India games is directly contradicted by the ICC’s strict and transparent appointment system.

1. Nationality Rules: ICC protocols explicitly prohibit match officials from refereeing or umpiring matches involving their own country. Andy Pycroft is from Zimbabwe, ensuring inherent neutrality in matches between other nations.
2. No Team Influence: National teams have absolutely no say in which officials are appointed to their matches. The ICC’s dedicated panel makes all assignments based on merit, workload management, and neutrality, completely insulating the process from external pressure.
3. Governance Structure: The suggestion that the ICC would conspire to assign a specific referee to benefit one team contradicts the entire foundation of the council’s mission to uphold the sport’s integrity.

The Statistical Evidence: The Numbers That Debunk the Myth

Publicly available statistics on Andy Pycroft’s career as a match referee deliver the final, decisive blow to Ramiz Raja’s claims. The data shows a balanced distribution of assignments across all major cricketing nations.

Here is a breakdown of matches officiated by Andy Pycroft by team:

Key takeaways from the data:

• India ranks third on Pycroft’s list, not first.
• He has officiated in more matches involving South Africa and Sri Lanka than India.
• The difference in numbers between teams like India (124), England (107), and Pakistan (102) is marginal and reflects the general volume of cricket played by these nations over time.
• Raja’s specific claim of “90 games” is factually incorrect, with the actual figure being significantly higher at 124, further undermining the credibility of his statement.

Conclusion: Emotion Over Evidence

The allegations made by Ramiz Raja against Andy Pycroft and the ICC are serious. However, they collapse when examined through the lenses of protocol, logic, and statistics.

The evidence clearly shows:

• Match referees cannot influence match outcomes.
• ICC appointments are neutral and beyond team influence.
• The distribution of Pycroft’s matches is balanced and normal.

This incident appears to be a case of reactive emotion overshadowing factual reality. For the integrity of the sport, it is crucial that such serious allegations are backed by irrefutable proof, not conjecture. The available evidence definitively busts this myth, confirming that Andy Pycroft’s record is that of a neutral, experienced ICC official.