Michael Atherton's Spirit of Cricket

The Spirit of Cricket

Michael Atherton’s article in the Times on 1^st 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.

The Problems in the England Dressing Room

Over the last week there have been numerous articles in the media about the breakdown in relationship between the captain and coach of the England team. There have been countless comments from experts from cricket and from other sports. This morning Sir Clive Woodard, who is demonstrably one of the most successful managers in England's recent sporting history, made his views clear on Radio 4. Geoffrey Boycott, who can be guaranteed to be forthright, has written sensible comments, Derek Pringle, Jonathan Agnew and several other cricket journalists have all had their say. They are experienced former cricketers who have much to offer in terms of advice. Behind the scenes everyone has an opinion and it has been a red-hot topic of conversation amongst cricketers and probably anyone interested in the success of the England team.

Cricket is a different game from the other team sports such as rugby, football or hockey which last for eighty or ninety minutes and are played at a different pace to cricket. In these sports there is less time for major changes in tactics that have not been, in some ways, pre-planned. A coach and his captain can discuss with the team in advance the various options available and it is more possible for the coach or manager (and there is a difference) to dictate tactics and change the mode of play, not only at half-time but also during the course of the play. Inevitably the coach is not on the playing field, though in football in particular the dug-outs are in very close proximity and the players are obviously aware of the instructions that are issued throughout the game.

Cricket is very different. Once the team has crossed the boundary rope they are for the most part more than seventy yards, and often over one hundred yards, from the coaches or managers who now make up the squad of players and officials in a dressing room. The captain has to make decisions every ball, every over and every time that a new batsman is on strike. It is impossible for a coach to make these decisions. In fact, the late Bob Woolmer, one of the best international coaches, proposed that the captain should wear an earphone and should be able to have contact with, or at least receive opinions from, the coach. He realised that the coach's role is very limited once the team is on the field and was trying to create a way for the coach to have more influence.

Although there are many overlapping managerial and leadership skills needed by captains in any sport, the cricket captain needs different and additional skills to those required by the captains of the other sports. This clearly elevates his/her role to a higher level than that enjoyed by the captains of football, rugby or hockey teams.

The relationship between the captain, who has to be completely in charge once on the field and, in my view, in the dressing room during the hours of play, and the coach, whose responsibility is to prepare the players through practice, fitness training and any other ways that may be necessary with individuals, is vital. It is inevitable that, from time to time, there will be disagreement between the two people occupying those roles. It would be, of course, possible to say that one of the two is the senior person in the partnership, but it is unrealistic in the eyes of many former cricketers to see a captain who is completely subservient to a coach. In many ways it is easier to see that the coach needs to fit in with the leadership of the captain of the time and be an assistant in preparation and in discussing tactics. A pair of eyes from the dressing room is always helpful and can convey ideas at lunch, tea or during drinks breaks. However, the real responsibility for making the crucial changes on the field at the right time can only lie with the captain who is out there with the team.

It is interesting that the captain currently has no official position on the selection committee, except on tour once the party has been chosen. I cannot see how that can be acceptable to a captain who must have confidence in the bowlers in particular, but also in the players around him. Without being the only person responsible for selection, surely the captain should be party to all selection discussions? It would be extremely difficult for any captain to take on to the field bowlers in whom he has no confidence. The captain has the power to decide who bowls and when and there are examples in the fairly recent past when it has been clear that a captain has been not felt able to put on one of his bowlers although the situation possibly demanded it.

In the current conflict between Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores, which would have been much more appropriately dealt with without the media speculation and the public airing of individuals' views, it is impossible to know, although that does not prevent much speculation, what the real issues were. Kevin Pietersen is obviously his own man and that is a strength in a captain provided he has respect and support from the players he is leading into the match. There appears to be considerable doubt that he enjoyed that support from a sufficient number of the team, which is not surprising given his history at Nottinghamshire and the difficulties that he had with those who were supposed to be on the same side. As a captain he falls into the mould of up-and-at-'em leaders. That approach to captaincy did not succeed with Ian Botham in the Ashes series of 1981 when Mike Brearley's return reversed the whole series. It did not succeed when Andrew Flintoff was chosen to lead the England team to Australia on the last occasion. That is not to say that both of these two cricketers did not have many qualities as players and were in a number of ways great focal points around which others could rally. That does not make them the right people to captain the team. In all three cases the player was probably the best player in the team, which is an increased pressure, but in Pietersen's case there is the added complication of his ego, which can be off-putting for some in the team as well as for people close to the team.

In the case of Peter Moores, the jury was, in some ways, still out about his ability as a coach at international level. He was clearly a thoughtful and successful coach at county level and was well-regarded as the ECB Academy Director. It is not impossible for a coach without international experience to be successful at that level, but it depends on the coach's personality, skills and management capability as well as acceptance by the players that he is the right person for the job. He may be unfortunate to have come up against such a dominant captain, but most teams have done well with a strong captain and it is the coach's responsibilty to work with the captain to forge a strong and productive relationship. However there is no doubt that most cricketers still feel more confident from the outset in a coach who has experienced the same strains and stresses and gone through the same pressures as they are going through. An international background as a player would have helped his cause.

Andrew Strauss is the obvious choice to take on the role of captain. He should probably have been captain on the tour to Australia once Michael Vaughan was declared unfit. He has not done badly on the occasions, in fact he has been successful, when he has stood in for an injured captain and he has experience necessary to lead the team. He is a balanced personality without an ego, though he is bright, determined and strong-minded and will hopefully not allow any rifts to develop within the dressing room.

Andy Flower is another quietly-spoken but very determined person who has a wealth of international cricket experience behind him. He and Andrew Strauss should complement each other well over the coming weeks and, let us hope, will lead England back to winning ways.

It will be clear from what has already been said that I do not subscribe to the suggestion that the coach should be the supremo in the England cricket set-up. Equally it is unrealistic to assume that a captain knows enough about all the different aspects of running a squad to take total command. I believe that the leadership of the England team should be a triumvirate. The captain has a role, as does the coach. However, there are so many other aspects that impact on the team not only on tour but during the home cricket season. Geoff Miller, the chairman of selectors could be the third man, Hugh Morris, the managing director of England cricket probably is as near to the role that is required as anyone, though neither is permanently with the squad. There is still a place for a permanent manager. That is possibly where the role of supremo should lie. The role would not be directly involved with the day-to-day cricket decisions, but would be the managing director of the squad. Sir Clive Woodward was perhaps thinking of the manager's role when he suggested this morning that the coach had to be responsible for appointing the captain.

There is a fear amongst some of returning to the days when a well-known person, such as the Duke of Norfolk, was the manager of the touring team. That is not what is required nowadays. However there are people who could fill the role today. In New Zealand recently John Graham, a former All-Black rugby captain was the manager of the cricket team and was highly successful in sorting out some difficult issues. There are people in England who would be able to command the same sort of respect that John Graham commanded. The question is whether the ECB will review the management structure and put a manager more closely in charge of the set-up.

The next few months are vital for the new management team. The West Indies are not the strongest team, but it is important that England plays well and wins the two series in the West Indies and at the start of the English season conclusively. The Australians are more vulnerable than they have been for the last ten or more years, though no Australian team will rollover easily. If England can come out of this current difficulty stronger than before, the supporters will be grateful that such decisive action has been taken.

Red and Yellow Cards for Umpires

There has been a recent article in the media suggesting that red and yellow cards may be introduced on a trial basis into 1st Class cricket in England and Wales. Whilst I cannot speak on behalf of the ECB Association of Cricket Officials Board, of which I am Chairman, or its members, I do have very strong views on this issue, forged when I was Secretary & Chief Executive MCC and heavily involved in the MCC Laws Working Party.

When the Laws of Cricket were revised and rewritten in 2000, Lord Cowdrey and others were adamant that we should not alter the roles of the captains and the umpires. Cricket is unique in team sports (c.f. rugby, football, hockey etc) in that the Captain is responsible for the discipline of his/her team. The umpires do not have the power to dismiss a player from the field, although there are a number of situations in which the umpires are authorised to intervene (Point 3 in the Spirit of Cricket). The responsibilities of the captain are clearly stated in the preamble to the Laws:

• Responsibility of captains
  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
• Player's conduct
  In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decisions of an umpire, 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, and instruct the latter to take action.
  
  The Laws Working Party decided that red and yellow cards were not the answer to ill-discipline and did not introduce them into the new edition of the Laws.
  
  Any statement or decision which alters that position changes the whole relationship between captains, players and umpires.
  
  The Laws of Cricket are in place for all games of cricket, although Regulations can be written to supersede the Laws. Regulations have usually been introduced in international or first-class cricket where games are overseen by two field umpires, two additional off-field umpires and a match referee as well as the scorers. The Laws, which are also in force for less-prominent games of cricket between teams who often provide their own umpires, sometimes chosen from amongst the batting team. In these cases it would clearly be absurd to introduce red and yellow cards for the use of umpires.
  
  We would all agree that ill-discipline at all levels is unacceptable. However, the introduction of these cards was not considered by MCC, in revising the Laws, to be the way forward in combating ill-discipline. The Laws were agreed, in 2000, by the MCC Cricket Committee, the MCC Members and the International Cricket Council, who were consulted throughout the two years of redrafting. It is hard to see what has changed in the last eight years to reverse that decision.
  
  The use of yellow cards undermines the role and the responsibilities of the captain under the Spirit of Cricket. If ICC chooses to implement yellow cards at the top level, I believe it would be a mistake. For yellow cards to be introduced in the non-first-class game would, in my mind, be totally inappropriate. Captains must be made aware of their responsibilities. League authorities and clubs must support the umpires, if they feel it necessary to submit adverse reports about players or incidents. ECB, as the national governing body, must also take a strong line in maintaining or, if as it appears is needed in some levels of cricket, restoring discipline through educating, imposing sanctions where necessary and taking a firm and uncompromising stance.
  
  

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

England in Sri Lanka

There is inevitable disappointment at the results that have come from the Test Series in Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, it is far too easy for spectators to be critical and to recommend all sorts of remedies with the benefit of hindsight The media are also good at that! So what went wrong?

It is not easy to find better players than those selected for the tour party. There will always be a number of alternatives available and often it is merely a matter of instinct as to who will be most likely to succeed. There was not much quibbling when the tour party left for Kandy.

In Sri Lanka the England team was outplayed in three areas: the batsmen did not score as heavily as the Sri Lankans, the catching was inadequate and the lack of penetration amongst the bowlers prevented the team from finishing off the opposition even if they made early inroads. As in other series, Murali was the main difference in the bowling attacks. He is, of course, a great bowler who can turn a match in a very short spell. When a wicket was needed he usually found an unplayable delivery, though he had to work much harder and bowl more overs for each wicket. Monty, the England number one spinner, is still learning, but he still has an impressive strike rate. Against such fine players of spin as Jayawardene and Sangakarra he needed support both from better field placing and perhaps from a second spinner to apply the pressure. It is still too early for England to expect him to turn in performances as consistently as a spin bowler who has taken more wickets that anyone else in the history of the game.

It is time for the selectors to look at two issues:

1. Have they chosen the right wicket-keeper?
2. Have they chosen teams with the best balance to win matches?

There has always been a tendancy for the England wicket-keeper to be selected for his batting ability. County Cricket has a history of producing several fine wicket-keepers at the same time and selectors have often chosen on the basis of who is likely to score the most runs. That is fine if there is little to choose between them as wicket-keepers. Matt Prior is a highly accomplished player who, unusually amongst today's batsmen, does not move his feet too early. Sadly that may prove his undoing as a wicket-keeper. He still fails to move into position quickly enough to avoid a last-minute dive. Top class wicket-keepers have always appeared very light on their feet and have naturally been in position with plenty of time to make a low or wide catch. Mind you, Prior has not always had the easiest bowlers coming at him! There have been some very wide deliveries which have needed a goalkeeper's dive and agility. Nevertheless he has dropped too many catches for the bowlers or the selectors to have complete confidence in him. The media spotlight has also focussed on his failings.

In today's game the wicket-keeper is expected to bat in the top seven, be the focal point for the fielders by keeping morale high throughout the day and tidying up any poor throws, pressurise the batsman (which he ought to be able to do without constantly commenting on everything!) and catch everything within reach. The most important part, though, must be the last point. Is Prior good enough as a wicket-keeper to provide the team with this? Although every wicket-keeper will drop the occasional catch and miss the odd stumping, the odds at present are not good enough for a team wanting to be in the top two Test teams in the world.

The balance of the team has been adversely affected by the injuries to Andrew Flintoff. This is always the case when a major bowling all-rounder is unavailable. This has increased the pressure to play the best batting wicket-keeper, but has reduced the chance of playing a balanced bowling attack. On most pitches variety of bowling is the greatest asset for a captain. Three seam bowlers and one spinner always looks to be one bowler short, although England will claim that they have two additional seam bowlers in Collingwwood and Bell and two additional spinners in Vaughan and Pietersen. In the third Test in Sri Lanka there must have been a temptation to play the second spinner, although Kevin Pietersen is more than capable of bowling a limited number of overs in a day. Ravi Bopara was not the answer as a replacement for Flintoff at number six, because the captain did not seem to feel able to bowl him enough. Perhaps Michael Vaughan has the same reservations about the second spinner, in which case, why was Graeme Swann taken on tour? Even if Owais Shah had been selected ahead of Bopara, England would probably not have won the series, although, on the assumption that Shah would have scored more runs than Bopara, they might have been in with more of a chance of staying in touch with the Sri Lankan scores.

The major difference statistically between the two teams was that the Sri Lankan batsmen did not lose their wickets when they were set. Only Alistair Cook scored a century in the series for England, yet there were several who scored fifties. This is clearly closely linked to the fact that Sri Lanka had the most potent wicket-taker in Murali. However, it was not only Murali who brought about the demise of some England batsmen. Poor running between the wickets was a factor and so was the ability of the Sri Lanka seam bowlers to extract life out of seemingly docile pitches better, backed up by better close catching. There also appeared to be a greater hunger for runs amongst the Sri Lanka batsmen.

Tactically, at times, England seem to get it wrong. The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that they expect the three seamers to take most of the wickets supported by Monty, either to tie up an end or to toil by himself as the sole spin bowler. On slow sub-continent pitches surely most captains would prefer to have five front-line bowlers with the option of two spinners? The first five batsmen have to be good enough to score big hundreds, the sixth batsman should ideally be a wicket-taking bowler as well as a batsman capable of scoring hundreds, number seven should be the best wicket-keeper/batsman available and the last four should be the bowlers most likely to succeed in the conditions of the day. That probably means that the main strike bowler will bowl in short bursts supported by two swing bowlers who can be relied upon to bowl economically when required. Monty needs a fellow slow bowler, preferably bowling off-spin. That would give Vaughan the variety that the England team currently lacks, though it is not clear whether he wants that kind of attack.

New Zealand in the New Year will be a different prospect on different pitches. However, there will still be a need for big scores from the batsmen, good catching led by the wicket-keeper and a balanced bowling attack capable of taking twenty wickets in the match.

Roger Knight