The Spirit of Cricket
Michael Atherton’s article in the Times on 1st October raised the issue of the ‘grey areas’ which surround the Laws of Cricket. It is always good to discuss and debate these areas of a sport, which are all-too-quickly abused and exploited in the name of competitive spirit or the will to win. His conclusions and his obviously heartfelt views about the Spirit of Cricket, however, need to be questioned and challenged further by those of us who are closer to John Woodcock in our views.
He mentions two occasions when the batman had assumed that the ball was dead either because the run had been completed or the over had ended. In both cases it is easy to blame the batsmen for “being dozy” and Michael may be right in saying that they should have waited for the ball to be called dead by the umpire. However, it is not always easy to hear the umpire call “over” and on occasions a batsman will move out of his crease for all sorts of reasons before the call has come. Technically speaking, in both cases, the umpire could have decided that the ball was “settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper” (Law 23 paragraphs 1 and 2) and therefore the spirit of the Laws might not have been tested. Indisputably, in Murali’s case there was no intention of taking another run. In the case of Paul Collingwood he did not overbalance in playing the shot and therefore was not genuinely stumped, nor did he appear to be taking a run, so he was not really run out.
Michael also mentions the occasions when Angelo Mathews was recalled by Andrew Strauss and when Grant Elliott was not recalled by Paul Collingwood. The situations both involved a collision between the batman and one of the fielding team.
In all of these situations the captains involved had options. Fleming and Collingwood chose to let the appeal stand, Strauss and Vettori chose to reprieve the batsman. The captain always has the option of withdrawing the team’s appeal in the interests of the spirit of the game provided that he has a clear idea in his mind of what that constitutes. The batsman’s intention and whether a collision is deliberate or not cannot be defined in the Laws, so a captain has to rely on his own instincts or the commonly accepted standards of his time, which may not always be in line with the traditional values of the game.
All these may be difficult decisions to make, but, in the Laws of Cricket, a captain is given the responsibility for making them. The umpire is there to advise, “be the sole judge of fair and unfair play” and, ultimately, to apply the Laws.
“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.”
The Laws of any sport are written for players, umpires and scorers in the knowledge that there needs to be a structure to the game and a number of regulations to guide the actions of those participating and the decision-making of the officials. There cannot be a fair contest without the participants knowing the parameters within which they are to compete. The Laws of Cricket attempt to define most situations that may arise in a game, but, as with all laws, interpretations can vary and not every eventuality will be adequately covered.
The Spirit of Cricket points towards an ideal, which, given human frailty, may not be fully achieved. Does that mean that it is wrong to attempt to promote the ideal? Surely not! In all sports ideal standards beyond the laws or rules have been promoted, though not always followed. When implicitly understood standards have been broken or ignored, some sports have altered the laws or regulations in the hope that they can close that particular loophole. In cricket that happened when MCC introduced the Spirit of Cricket as the preamble to the Laws in 2000. However, that does not alter the position where players should be encouraged to compete within the Laws and be reminded of the need to consider the ‘grey areas’, which may constitute the ‘spirit’ of those Laws, and which also tend to bring out the ‘higher or baser instincts’ of an individual. There may be a better way of expressing what is meant by the Spirit of the Game. Although there have always been players who ignored the conventional codes, the majority of players over the years have had an understanding of where sportsmanship has crossed the undefined line into gamesmanship or sharp practice. Even today there is a reaction from most fielders and bowlers when a batsman does not “walk”, although, hypocritically, they themselves may also take that stance when batting. There is clearly still an implicit feeling that the batsman has acted wrongly and overstepped the bounds of what should be acceptable.
Michael Atherton derides the opening words of the Spirit of the Game as “a lot of well-meaning guff” and denies that cricket has ever had a “unique appeal”. He says that “Cricket, like other sports, is played by human beings and so it is no surprise that it is a flawed game.” Perhaps it is a play on words to say that cricket has a “unique appeal”. Cricket is the only game where, uniquely, a player appeals for a decision to be made, rather than waiting for an umpire’s or referee’s decision and then accepting or appealing against it (Law 27). With the incoming new “referral” or “review” system ICC is introducing a second appeal; that surely will be unique!
Although not specifically stated, it has been accepted that batsmen will walk off without any indication from the umpire when they are bowled or caught by the majority of the fielders, unless there is doubt whether the catch was cleanly taken. Other manners of dismissal need an appeal to an umpire. Run-out, stumped, hit wicket, handled the ball, LBW, timed out, hit the ball twice and obstruction may all have an element of doubt about them and the umpire’s role is to decide on these dismissals. If there is doubt about the catch being taken fairly, it is reasonable also to refer this decision to the umpire, although I cannot understand why one should not expect the fielders to claim only genuine catches (to do otherwise is surely cheating) and the batsman to walk off if he knows that he has hit the ball (to stand his ground is an attempt to be deceitful and therefore could be deemed sharp practice). I do assume that the fielders and the batsmen know what actually happened and I do not accept that, except on very rare occasions, there is genuine doubt in their mind. Obviously, in cases of doubt it must be right to leave the decision to the officials who have been given that responsibility.
In cricket, players are asked to respect their opponents, their own captain and team, the role of the umpires and the game’s traditional values. The captains are given the major responsibility for the team’s conduct, which inevitably leads to changes in interpretation of the Spirit of the Game dependent on the mores of the day. If captains are unaware of the ‘game’s traditional values’, it is important that administrators, commentators and coaches make them aware of them, even though the definitions may not all be universally agreed. The best forum for these deliberations would be a meeting of all international captains with the MCC World Cricket Committee, which attempts to be representative of the game worldwide without any political or national bias.
The traditional values have generally been agreed as being based on respect, which should cover most actions which have an impact on the other participants. In particular:
a) Players should accept, without question, the decision of the umpire
b) Players should not indulge in sharp practice, which although not actually cheating, may be seen as coming close to it and being deceitful
c) There is no place for violence on the field of play
d) No abusive language should be directed towards an opponent or umpire
The Laws are written for cricket at all levels. It should make no difference whether such an incident occurs in a local village match, in the final of the World Cup or on the last day of a deciding Ashes Test Match, but sadly the captains and some of those associated with professional teams do not always see that as being true. The moral obligation ought to be absolute and therefore consistently applied by all captains. If it is not, it is easy to see why players, teams and even Governing Bodies can lose respect for each other and why the atmosphere on the field and in the dressing rooms can change for the worse if there is any inkling of sharp practice. It is easy to dismiss this striving for ideals as naïve and outmoded, but it needs to be said that there are many supporters of the game of cricket who are disappointed that, increasingly, current and some influential past players are promoting, provocatively and at times unchallenged, the baser instincts of the players of today.
John Woodcock’s thoughts on acting within the Spirit of Cricket are clear. He believes it is the same as “being honourable” and compares the phrase to “chivalry”. The only problem with using these synonymous expressions is that those who want everything to be defined in laws without “grey areas” will choose not to understand their meaning any more than they are willing to accept the Spirit of Cricket as standing for an ideal, if not easily defined, way of playing the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment