Coaches must teach and insist on the Spirit of Cricket

The International Cricket Council's vision for cricket is that it should captivate and inspire people of every age, gender, background and ability while building bridges between continents, countries and communities. Central to this ambition is promoting the Spirit of Cricket, an ethos on how the game should be played and viewed both on and off the field.

When the current Code of Laws was introduced by MCC, in 2000, it included, for the first time, a Preamble defining the Spirit of Cricket. As it says: "Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this Spirit causes injury to the game itself". The Preamble goes on to explain the roles and responsibilities of captains, players and umpires in respecting and upholding the Spirit of Cricket.

As coaches, managers, parents, schoolteachers or spectators what do we expect from our players? What do we want from cricketers at the top level? Do we want them to accept the Spirit of Cricket and play fairly or do we expect them to take every opportunity to deceive the umpires, the opposition and everyone watching? When asked these questions, most, if not all, lovers of the game will say that players should “play hard, play fair”. If that is the case it is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that present and future players are aware of what this means.

The Spirit of Cricket is explicit in putting ultimate responsibility for the way in which the game is conducted into the hands of the captains. The preamble states:
“Captains and Umpires together set the tone for the conduct of a cricket match.”
“The Captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit and traditions of the Game as well as within the Laws.”
“The Umpires are the sole judges of Fair and Unfair Play.”

Cricket is different from other team games in that the umpire or referee is expected to work through the captains of the teams to instil discipline and control. In cricket there are no yellow or red cards, as in rugby, football or hockey, with which an official can dismiss a player from the field. The Laws make it clear that “the major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.”

There will be many situations where the captain feels the pressure of the position. No book is better than Mike Brearley’s Art of Captaincy as a training manual, amongst many other things, which should be read by all captains. This alludes to the numerous responsibilities of the captain. Are we, as coaches, managers, teachers and administrators, doing our bit in preparing captains for their responsibilities? Although an understanding of Fair Play starts at school or in junior club teams and needs to be taught from an early age, it is the high-profile matches and the first-class cricketers who set the tone which will be followed consciously or subconsciously by players in lowlier games. There is therefore a huge responsibility placed upon international players and, in particular, the captains to play cricket according to the Spirit of the Game. Managers, coaches and administrators should insist upon it and should be clear in their expectations. Past players are often very clear in giving their views, even if at times these views are not welcomed by the present generation of cricketers.

As Mike Brearley says, captains are, of course, expected to help select, then lead and motivate the team. On the field they set fields, change bowlers, analyse the weaknesses of opponents, maximise the strengths of their own team, keep alert at all times to opportunities to press home any advantage and do their utmost to win. They are also expected to ensure that their own batting, bowling and fielding (or wicket-keeping) does not suffer from any lapses in concentration and that their own position in the team is merited by their personal results. Off the field they have to prepare themselves and other team members and pre-empt possible rifts between players in the dressing room that might damage team spirit. They must communicate with all members of the selected team, with players who may have been dropped or who were close to selection, in addition to discussing their tactical thoughts with and listening to coaches, managers, committees and everyone else who invariably has ideas to put into the mix. We do expect a huge amount from our captains at every level of the game. On top of all of this, the preamble to the Laws demands that captains maintain a spirit of fair play. This is where captains must be able to maintain their composure and react to difficult situations in a balanced way. It may be one of the hardest parts of the role, but this is when the best captains stand out, whether they are men or women, boys or girls.

What do we expect captains to do in the following circumstances?
1) If, when the captain is the non-striker, a batting partner hits the ball in the air to backward cover and stays at the crease, when the fielder claims to have caught the ball and there has been little doubt that the ball carried.
2) If a close fielder in their own team claims a catch that the catcher and several others know has bounced before being caught.
3) If one of their bowlers is illegally tampering with the ball, which is starting to swing on a flat pitch.
4) If a fast bowler has received a first warning from the umpire for bowling too many short-pitched deliveries at a number eleven batsman and is furious that the team is unable to take the last wicket, despite the fielding team all being convinced that the batsman nicked an earlier delivery.
5) If they know that one of their close fielders has been verbally abusing batsmen, out of range of the umpires’ hearing, in order to destroy their concentration.
6) If an opposition batman is inadvertently knocked to the ground by the bowler while running and is therefore unable to gain his ground before the bails are removed. Most coaches will remember that this happened at the Oval one-day international this year between England and New Zealand.

In the vast majority of cases there will be no television cameras and so there can be no recourse to a slow-motion replay and the decision of a third umpire. In any case, the Laws are explicit in stating that the match is in the hands of the captains and the players, guided by the umpires on the field, who are only authorised to intervene in certain situations. In the dressing room it is extremely difficult to be involved in an incident which happens in the heat of the moment, although a schoolteacher or coach might be in a position to intervene quickly from the boundary in a junior game. Would we expect a different reaction from the captain if the game were televised? More importantly, should we expect the captain to react in the same way whether or not there is promotion or relegation at stake in the match?

These are all questions that we should be asking ourselves, if we are responsible for the teaching or coaching of the game. Is the Spirit of Cricket clear in its instruction? The wording of the preamble to the Laws, which most players will probably not have read, could not be clearer in some of these situations in question:

The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for:

Your opponents
Your own Captain and team
The role of the Umpires
The game’s traditional values

It is against the Spirit of the Game:

To dispute an Umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture
To direct abusive language towards an opponent or Umpire
Indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, e.g.
a) appeal, knowing that the Batsman is not out
b) advance towards an Umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing
c) seek to distract an opponent either verbally or by harassment with persistent clapping or unnecessary noise under the guise of enthusiasm and motivation of one’s own side

The Umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of:

Time wasting
Damaging the pitch
Intimidatory bowling
Tampering with the Ball
Any other action that they consider to be unfair

In an ideal world we would all agree on the answers to the questions above, but cricketers are all individuals and there may be a variety of responses to these situations. The fundamental point behind the Spirit of Cricket is RESPECT. If we accept this, the responses from the captain to the situations above are relatively easy:

1) If one genuinely respects one’s opponents, there should be no reason for not accepting an opponent’s word that the ball has been caught and therefore no reason to stay at the crease. The captain should feel duty-bound to intervene. Although this is not the question raised, it may also be relevant to ask whether it makes any difference if the ball has carried, not to backward cover, but to the wicketkeeper.
2) It is against the Spirit of the Game to cheat; therefore captains should not accept fielders in their team who blatantly cheat by claiming a catch that has not reached them without bouncing.
3) The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of tampering with the ball, but the captain should not stand by and let it happen.
4) The umpires are also authorised to intervene in cases of intimidatory bowling. However, captains should be controlling their bowlers, so that the aggression, which is a necessary part of bowling fast, does not spill over into too many short-pitched deliveries.
5) It is against the Spirit of the Game to direct abusive language towards an opponent. The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of any other action that they consider to be unfair, so both captains and umpires should condemn this practice.
6) In the final situation there is no real reason for an umpire to intervene, except in an advisory capacity. Although the collision was in all probability an accident, it is a situation which places the batsman in an unfortunate and unfairly disadvantageous position through no fault of his own. Most captains have an understanding of their options, one of which is always that an appeal may be withdrawn. Umpires only give their run-out decisions following an appeal. The initial decision not to withdraw the appeal at the Oval resulted in a most unpleasant atmosphere between the teams and the need for an apology, which fortunately was forthcoming publicly at the presentation ceremony.

In some cases it has been argued that the umpires are present to make decisions and therefore everything should be left to them. It has also been argued that batsmen may receive correct and incorrect decisions against them and therefore they should not do anything until the umpire’s decision has been given. There is no doubt that many players believe this, if we are to judge by watching some batsmen at all levels of the game. Is this what we believe to be the Spirit of the Game? Is this showing respect for the umpires and our opponents? Is this approach engendering the atmosphere in which we want to play our cricket? Will this make cricket a better game? My view is clear, but the game is in the hands of those who coach and play it today. Perhaps we should include with these two groups of participants the cricket press and media, who also have a huge influence over spectators, readers and followers of cricket.

Let us go back to where we started. The Captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit and traditions of the Game as well as within the Laws. It is the responsibility of coaches and managers, schoolteachers and administrators to guide and monitor captains, support them in difficult times and insist on their understanding what their role demands in different situations. As is stated in Law 42.18 (Players’ Conduct), “In the event of any Player failing to comply with the instructions of an Umpire, criticising his decisions by word or action, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the Umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other Umpire and to the Player’s Captain requesting the latter to take action.” It is not the umpire who is responsible for the discipline on the field; it is the captain, even if, on occasions, it may be necessary for the umpires to point out those responsibilities.

Ultimately, the game of cricket will change through different generations. Anyone who has been a schoolteacher will know and expect that “children will be children” and will always set themselves against authority. Equally the teaching profession knows that “teachers must be teachers” and react accordingly. So with sportsmen, there will often be the temptation to try to gain an advantage by means of gamesmanship, occasionally leading into cheating. The cricketers of today will often see a situation in a different light and react as their emotions take them. It is the responsibility of today’s coaches, managers, teachers and administrators to protect the universal truths of the game and explain convincingly to those in their charge what they expect from them and, most importantly, what the Laws expect and what the Spirit of Cricket demands. The success of the Spirit of Cricket initiative depends upon the willingness of players, coaches, officials and administrators at all levels to embrace the concept and apply it in their approach to every game.

This article began with the International Cricket Council’s comments, so let us return to part of the ICC’s definition of the Spirit of Cricket.

“Cricket enjoys a unique mix of attributes in international sport. It is underpinned by rich traditions and high values; it is played under a guiding principle of respect; it evokes passion, commitment and excitement; it is truly multi-cultural, it stands proudly on the world's sporting stage, it is a sociable game that forges deep long-lasting friendships; it is a team sport that combines skill, strategy, endeavour and athleticism; above all it is a game that means many different things to many different people and provides endless joy to those that it touches.”

Those rich traditions and high values will only survive if we are all vigilant and do our best to preserve them.

Roger Knight
24 September 2008

Citing and Referrals

Events in the current Test Series in Australia make it clear that the umpires in televised matches must be given more support wherever possible. Where technology is available, they must be permitted to use it. In international matches today there are four umpires, the third of whom is constantly monitoring play on a television screen. There is no need to change any of the Laws of Cricket for the umpires standing in the middle to consult the third umpire before making a decision.

Last November on this website I made a plea for the match referee to have the power to "cite" players who do not play the game within the Spirit of Cricket and within the Laws (See "Technology in Cricket - Should players be cited?", posted in November 2007). I believe that citing players after scrutinising the replays and also the introduction of "referrals", not by the players, but by the third umpire may well be the only way forward for the international game. Citing by a match referee and the use of referrals by the third umpire would maintain the authority of the umpires and keep the decision-making process where it should be - in the hands of the match officials.

There was a trial in County Cricket in England and Wales in 2007, whereby a batsman or the captain of the fielding team had the right to "make a referral" to the third umpire against a decision made by an umpire on the field. Although there were restrictions put in place to prevent this right being abused, it was not seen as successful or helpful and the trial has been abandoned. I am delighted that this idea has been cast aside, though I am concerned that the ICC Cricket Committee and the MCC World Cricket Committee are considering this again. It goes against the Spirit of Cricket. The Preamble to the Laws states "It is against the Spirit of the Game to dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture". The players have to appeal in the first place in the case of some dismissals to ask the umpire to make a decision. To have another appeal was always ridiculous. However, there has never been any reason why the umpire at the bowler's end, to whom most appeals are addressed, should not refer to either his partner on the field or the third umpire, if he believes that they can help his decision. Indeed in certain kinds of dismissal it is now strongly encouraged or even mandatory for the umpire to ask for a decision from his colleague watching the replays.

Although it would contradict Law 27.5, regarding the jurisdiction of the umpires, if the third umpire intervened without being asked, it should also be made possible for this official to ask the umpire at the bowler's end to wait before making a decision or on occasions even ask for a "referral" after the decision has been made. Although it would be wrong to change the Laws, which are applicable to all cricket matches at every level of the game, it could be done by means of an ICC Playing Regulation, which would only apply to international matches where television replays are available. It would be infinitely preferable for the third umpire rather than the players to have the chance to question the standing umpire's decision.

Apart from a reluctance to go down the route of technology because it is not always foolproof, there is also a fear that the game would be interrupted too often if every decision were referred to the third umpire. Perhaps the umpires in the middle should be encouraged to consult the third umpire whenever they intend to give a batsman out, rather than after every appeal.

If the game's administrators wish to reduce the amount of dissent on the field of play, they should consider a combination of citing and referrals, which might encourage all international cricketers to play within the Spirit of Cricket.

Roger Knight

Umpires and Match Referees need the support of the Administrators

Not all that long ago the International Cricket Council introduced independent umpires to Test Matches on the grounds that any umpire from a country taking part in the match might be accused of bias. That brought cricket into line with rugby and football and was welcomed by the players and the administrators. Today India has stated that Steve Bucknor was biased against its team, that his decisions in this and previous matches clearly favoured the Australians. When the Pakistan players refused to continue the match against England at the Oval they accused Darrell Hair of being biased against them, as had the Sri Lankans when Hair no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing. So much for players accepting the decisions and the independence or neutrality of the umpires!

All umpires would agree, I am sure, that they are fallible and make mistakes. However, for them to be accused of being biased is tantamount to slander. What is their employer doing to support them against these charges? Sadly not enough!

1. Darrell Hair has been told that he must undergo remedial training before he can be considered again as an umpire at the top level. This concession was only made after Hair took the ICC to court. He may have acted insensitively and prematurely at the end of the match at the Oval, but he did apply the Laws of Cricket. He may have made some poor decisions during the match and in other matches involving Pakistan, but where is the evidence that he was biased against them?

2. Darrell Hair has not umpired in a game involving Sri Lanka for eight years.

3. Steve Bucknor has been removed from standing in the third Test Match between Australia and India in Perth. Malcolm Speed, the ICC Chief Executive Officer has insisted that the decision was made for the good of the game, not to appease India. “We could have taken a confrontational tone but we took a diplomatic approach," he said. "We have got an international sporting incident where countries are polarised. What we are seeking to do is avoid having that turn into an international crisis.”

Several senior umpires are privately very upset that the game’s administrators at international or county level do not support them sufficiently. Umpiring is becoming a thankless task and the attitude of players and Boards towards them is increasingly hostile. Television replays show their mistakes to the world, players pressurize them more and more, there are derogatory comments made about them in the media and, in the case of these two umpires, they cannot rely on their employer, Cricket’s governing body, to back them when they are slandered.

Match referees also need support from the ICC. They too are honest men doing their best in a match, albeit from a distance and usually behind a plate glass window until they have to come face to face with the players and officials. They are expected, as are umpires, to be strong but understanding in their dealings with players. They are given authority to conduct investigations, hold enquiries and impose sanctions on players who step outside the required standards. In Sydney, Mike Procter was asked to investigate an alleged case of racism, which was only heard, apparently, by three or four players. Whether he has taken the right decision is not for me to say, but presumably he was convinced enough by the evidence produced to accept the word of two Australians against two Indians. The real problem with “sledging”, whether of a racist nature or not, is that it goads the opposition, as it is intended to do. The macho approach always escalates and leads to confrontation.

It does appear that ICC cannot win in this situation. If the Council supports the Match Referee, India has threatened to return home. If it overturns the decision, it is undermining Mike Procter, its own employee, who has undoubtedly been told to take strong action in cases of alleged racism. Nevertheless the ICC cannot duck the issue and its decision will not be easy.

Cricket has always been based on a number of unwritten tenets, which were written for the first time into the Preface of the Laws of Cricket in 2000:

a. Cricket should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself.
b. The umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play
c. The Spirit of the Game involves Respect for:
i. your opponents
ii your own captain and team
iii the role of the umpires
iv the game’s traditional values
d. It is against the Spirit of the Game to direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire (It is not only racist comments that need to be stamped out of the game!)

Unless the governing bodies of the game throughout the world embrace these points and accept the authority of the match referee and the umpires, the game of cricket will deteriorate. Test Matches must be staged in a spirit in which both teams show respect to their opponents and to the umpires. All governing bodies should not only sign up to that but also understand that, on occasions, their team will need to be reprimanded, if they overstep the mark. The captains should show the way and understand their responsibility in defusing potentially inflammatory situations. Another major part of the Preface to the Laws is that “The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws”. It is important that ICC stands firm and stresses these points. It cannot afford to let the Spirit of Cricket wither.

This unseemly and petulant situation taking place in Australia is not doing any good for Cricket. A greater use of technology might assist umpires in making some of their decisions and this should be explored further. It is of the utmost importance that the senior administrators are strong and supportive of the men in the middle, the umpires, and the man overseeing their control of the game, the match referee. Ultimately the way in which the game is conducted is in the hands of the captains and the players. They have a responsibility to play fair but hard. They do not, and did not throughout the history of the game, always get things right and now is the time for the leading players in the world to set the tone for the rest of the cricketers who follow their example.

Roger Knight

What do we want from cricketers?

What do we want from cricketers at the top level? Do we want them to play fairly or do we expect them to take every opportunity to deceive the umpires, the opposition and everyone watching?

Today there was the perfect example of why players, when they do not play within the Spirit of the game, should be cited by the Match Referee (See my article in November 2007). Andrew Symonds edged a ball to the India wicketkeeper and stood his ground, having turned and watched the ball disappear into the wicketkeeper's gloves - often a tell tale reaction when a batsman knows that he has hit the ball. Despite the loud appeal the umpire gave a not out decision. Television replays made it quite clear that Symonds had hit the ball and that there was no doubt that the ball had easily carried to the wicketkeeper. Indeed, in an interview later, Symonds acknowledged that he had hit the ball, but justified his decision to stand his ground by saying that he had been given out on occasions when he had not hit the ball. He saw his actions as merely evening things up.

Compare this incident with the occasion when Adam Gilchrist, one of Symonds' team-mates, 'walked' in the semi-final of an ICC World Cup in South Africa. He knew that he had gloved the ball and went without waiting for the umpire's decision.

Which of these two players do we believe was acting in the Spirit of Cricket? There will be some, undoubtedly, who will attempt to justify the actions of Symonds by saying that the umpire is there to make such decisions. They will say it is an individual's choice as to whether he should walk or not. They will agree that umpires make mistakes and that the players will get some good and some bad decisions, so it is only right to take the rough with the smooth and to capitalise when the wrong decision goes in your favour.

Conversely, others will say that 'not walking' is tantamount to cheating; that this aspect of cricket causes more frustration and antagonism amongst the players of the fielding team; that it increases the pressure on the umpires; that there is no difference in hitting the ball in the air to the fielders in front of the wicket, when generally batsmen 'walk', from hitting it in the air to the wicketkeeper.

This has always been an issue which has divided players. However, as players or spectators, we constantly say that it is important that the correct decision is taken. Players have the opportunity to help to achieve more correct decisions if they 'walk' when they edge the ball. It is disappointing when they decide that their own score or the team's position is of greater importance than the game itself. Although it is understandable that professional cricketers, who are employed and paid to achieve results, should strive for personal success, if the Spirit of Cricket is really to prevail it is vital that players are made to accept their responsibilities. This is where administrators should be stronger and say unequivocally how players should act.

Administrators should consider whether technology can help to keep players honest. Match Referees should be told to cite batsmen who have clearly hit the ball and have not 'walked' when the ball has been cleanly caught.

Roger Knight