Cricket is a game of rules and like any other other game, people definitely have issues with those rules.
Cricket is the natural sport for lawyers to follow. It has Laws, not rules – what more could a lawyer want from a sport.
Those Laws have evolved over 270 years to deal with developments in the sport, its professionalisation, improved athleticism, technology and commercialisation.
So for example (to cope with the amazing boundary catches we now see) we now have convoluted new laws to deal with catching on the boundary which runs to a full page and video examples on the MCC website.
We have DRS (decision review system) dealing with LBWs, contested catches and the like. Even in club cricket we see live action streaming of games.
It won’t be long before club umpires have replays on mobile phones and snicko technology to detect faint edges on the bat.
Despite all these changes, and the increased commercialisation of the game and the threat that the fantastic T20 competitions around the world and the upcoming new competition, the Hundred pose to county cricket and the pinnacle that is Test cricket, have any of the fundamentals really changed?
There is and always was discussions and arguments about the nuances of the game. Increased technology, analysis and TV cameras have actually added to the debate on this.
The Spirit of the Game – “cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket” (opening lines of the Preamble to the Laws of Cricket).
You would be forgiven for thinking that issues around the Spirit of Cricket are new phenomena. They are not. Apocryphal tales of the sharp practice of WG Grace and others in the 19th Century bending the Spirit of the Game abound.
The fascinating thing in the modern era where every action on field (at elite level to increasingly down the structure) is recorded to endlessly scrutinised is that the Spirit of Cricket means different things to different people at different times (sometimes even to the same person at different times).
For some, a bowler running someone out in his run up is tantamount to state treason.
Batsmen habitually don’t walk when they know they have nicked one behind but complain about bowlers who appeal when they know the batter is not out.
The great thing about cricket is that to some degree it is not possible for the Laws to legislate on these matters so that individuals have an element of choice as to how they behave in these circumstances and we can all take our own views on where we stand.
In general terms players respect that overarching law that the umpires’ decision is final and cannot be challenged. For me, the endless questioning of the referee for every throw in, free kick etc. in football is a massive turnoff. Learned behaviour filters down from the Premier League to Sunday football to school football both bad and good.
DRS in cricket has in one sense given the players very limited ability to challenge umpires. After a number of years of refinement it is generally accepted as enhancing the game by both players and umpires a like. Umpire authority is maintained and more decisions are right than ever before.
DRS in cricket and TMO in rugby have both reduced the number of errors and increased the spectacle at live games.
VAR in football has a way to go in its development. It is not going away and ultimately it will help allow referees make less incorrect decisions. A work in progress. The instant gratification/simple winning/losing structure of football (unlike cricket’s more subtle, nuanced character) means how VAR and the spectator experience marry together needs thought and development. They can do it in rugby, why not football?
Back to cricket – two fabulous examples of the Spirit of the Game:
The first - Freddie Flintoff consoling Brett Lee in the 2005 Ashes. A lovely gesture, but arguably not a tough moral decision to make for Fred. Nothing in the game turned on what he did. He just acknowledged in the moment after the game what a contest it had been. A fine sporting gesture.
The other famous example is Adam Gilchrist nicking a ball and walking in the World Cup. Totally different to the Fred incident. To some an amazing action in a pressure game, an action to be applauded, upholding the highest values of the Spirit of the Game. To others (and probably some of his team mates on the day) an act of folly letting his country down.
Fast forward to the World Cup Final. England v Australia at Lord’s. England are 9 down with 2 runs to win. Ben Stokes feathers a catch behind. Only he knows he has hit it and the umpire is not going to give it.
If he walks and England lose, is he the hero or the villain – you decide!
