EDITORIAL - Taking fresh guard?

Yesterday marked the official update to new cricketing laws that took effect for all international series. Some changes are timely and necessary; for example, all written codes will now contain gender neutral language or gender specific pronoun references. Others like the send-off clause may generate confusion or controversy. While it is always good to periodically review the codebook, the implementation of these rules over the next few cricket tournaments will indeed determine how well they are implemented and their effectiveness in reigning in players’ behaviour.

Alterations to rules will always occur, especially where technological improvement can bring enhancements to the field, though that is not without its dubious moments. Just look at the recent, controversial dismissal of Marlon Samuels in the second one-day international against England. His original decision of not out, caught behind was changed after edge detection technology indicated there was a slight register of noise after he swung his bat. The problem, however, was that replays showed clear daylight between bat and the ball. In this case, since the decision overruled the onfield umpire’s ruling, the benefit did not go to the batsman since there was not full, conclusive evidence of a definite edge.

One change in the rulebooks that is likely to cause the most scrutiny and intrigue is that which empowers umpires to send off players temporarily or permanently because of their behaviour. To address the ‘deteriorating levels’ of player conduct, umpires will now have the authority to instruct captains to send off their players during the match for ‘poor onfield behaviour’. The breach is categorised under four levels, where Level 1 carries a warning given to the offending player to Level 4, where the player is sent off the field for the remainder of the match. Any level that is breached results in five penalty runs awarded to the opposing team. The temporary or permanent send-off is to be enacted for the ‘most serious offences’. In the extreme event that the captain of the team does not comply with the umpires’ request to eject the guilty player, then the umpires can potentially award the match to the other team, or scrap the match if both captains refuse to comply.

Though the lawbook continues to address the problem of poor conduct, it has long been established that player behaviour was never uniformly exemplary in the first place. The success of this new code, however, will lie in its interpretation. We agree there should be no deliberate, hostile physical contact made between players from opposing teams at any time; that should be cause for immediate censure. However, as it stands now, a look at some previous violations of the code show contrasting fines for such punishable offences. In some cases, players are fined their full fees; in other cases, one is left confused at the disparity when other players receive reprimands or are charged less than 100 per cent. This begs the question: what criteria will be used to adjudicate ‘inappropriate’ and offensive acts since the umpires themselves are to determine into which category an unfair action falls?

Unchanged in the rules is punishment for inappropriate comments or abusive language. In fact, those ideals are enshrined in the Code of Conduct as going against the ‘spirit of the game’. Cricket has always held itself to high standards, but it seems utopian to expect that – in the high stakes atmosphere of today’s professional sport environment – players of varying temperaments should show no negative emotion, or express no opinions on an umpire ruling them out or other aspects of the field. Reprimands are even dished out to batsmen who indicate pad or bat was involved if they felt the decision was unjust!

All in all, these changes will be watched eagerly by cricket aficionados, players and officials around the world. We await the feedback with much interest.