Spirit of the Game

[redandblack]

I thought it might be timely to reiterate the preamble to the laws of cricket.

When we're debating on-field behaviour, it might be useful.


[i]Preamble to the Laws
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 major responsbility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.
1. There are two Laws which place responsibility for the team's conduct firmly on the captain.

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 decision 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.

2. Fair and unfair play

According to the Laws the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play.

The umpires may intervene at any time and it is the responsibility of the captain to take action where required.

3. The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of:

Time wasting
Damaging the pitch
Dangerous or unfair bowling
Tampering with the ball
Any other action that they consider to be unfair
4. The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for:

Your opponents
Your own captain
The roles of the umpires
The game's traditional values5. 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
To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance:
(a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out
(b) to advance towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing
(c) to 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
6. Violence

There is no place for any act of violence on the field of play.

7. Players

Captains and umpires together set the tone for the conduct of a cricket match. Every player is expected to make an important contribution towards this.
© Marylebone Cricket Club


(My underlining)

Seems to me there's no excuse for poor behaviour on the field.

I think the 95% of cricketers who go through a career without a blemish might agree with me that the other 5% need to lift their game.

[MightyEagles]

I don't think that the umpires care too much about time wasting (as in no. 3) as they let the overs go on and on and let teams slip behind in the over rate.

[jackpot jim]

quite obviously most of the players and captains have never read the preamble to the laws of cricket, that or they have no repect for it.

[redandblack]

That's right, jj.

It should be required reading for any captain.

Those who ignore it don't deserve to be captain.

[jackpot jim]

That's right, jj.

It should be required reading for any captain.

Those who ignore it don't deserve to be captain.

From what i heard today, obviously Manou as captain hasn't much respect for the spirit of the game (re the hussey incident) , but he certainly wouldn't be alone there.

It's really up to cricket Australia to put a bit of heat on the captains to lift their game.

[locky801]

What was the actual Manou/Hussey incident

[jackpot jim]

What was the actual Manou/Hussey incident

Manou and Cosgrove gave Hussey a spray when he got out that Hussey took offence to. Hussey then took up his greiveances with the Redback coach Mark Sorrell until Jeff Vaughan stepped in to diffuse the situation.
Apparently Hussey has been giving it to Manou and Cosgrove in recent matches and this was their chance to give a bit back.

[bayman]

What was the actual Manou/Hussey incident

Manou and Cosgrove gave Hussey a spray when he got out that Hussey took offence to. Hussey then took up his greiveances with the Redback coach Mark Sorrell until Jeff Vaughan stepped in to diffuse the situation.
Apparently Hussey has been giving it to Manou and Cosgrove in recent matches and this was their chance to give a bit back.

all's fair in love & war

[Adelaide Hawk]

Apparently Hussey has been giving it to Manou and Cosgrove in recent matches and this was their chance to give a bit back.

If that's true, it's pathetic. If you give it, you must be prepared to take it.

[Adelaide Hawk]

To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance:
(a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out

I'm glad this has been referred to as cheating, because that's precisely what it is. People carry on about a batsman not walking as a cheat, but it's quite okay for a bowler or fielding team to exert enough pressure on an umpire in an attempt to force him to make an incorrect decision.

This is something that has crept into the game over the past couple of decades and has reached epidemic proportions. I'd love to see some form of penalty introduced for ridiculous appealing.

[dedja]

a simple 'not out' stupid from the ump is penalty enough ...

[brod]

What was the actual Manou/Hussey incident

Manou and Cosgrove gave Hussey a spray when he got out that Hussey took offence to. Hussey then took up his greiveances with the Redback coach Mark Sorrell until Jeff Vaughan stepped in to diffuse the situation.
Apparently Hussey has been giving it to Manou and Cosgrove in recent matches and this was their chance to give a bit back.

Hussey wouldnt shake hands with Manou after the game, just pushed it away

[JK]

To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance:
(a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out

I'm glad this has been referred to as cheating, because that's precisely what it is. People carry on about a batsman not walking as a cheat, but it's quite okay for a bowler or fielding team to exert enough pressure on an umpire in an attempt to force him to make an incorrect decision.

This is something that has crept into the game over the past couple of decades and has reached epidemic proportions. I'd love to see some form of penalty introduced for ridiculous appealing.

I wonder if sometimes we make judgements or form opinions based on what's acceptable either in other codes of sport or bygone era's, and forget the premise on which a game should function?

Ie, I was always brought up to try and con the umpire in Aussie Rules, if the situation permitted, whenever possible and it can be easy to adopt that attitude with other sports when it simply shouldn't be the case ... Don't get me wrong, when I played cricket (which is a LONG time ago now), I wouldn't claim a catch that I knew wasn't legit, but I had been guilty of appealling when I suspected a batsman probably wasn't out, which I've since realised is wrong (and would certainly go back and change).

Yet my attitude was probably influenced by my predominant sport of footy, where you did things like celebrate a teammates kicking of a point, in the hope that you could con the Goal umpire into awarding a goal (for eg).

[smithy]

What was the actual Manou/Hussey incident

Manou and Cosgrove gave Hussey a spray when he got out that Hussey took offence to. Hussey then took up his greiveances with the Redback coach Mark Sorrell until Jeff Vaughan stepped in to diffuse the situation.
Apparently Hussey has been giving it to Manou and Cosgrove in recent matches and this was their chance to give a bit back.

Hussey wouldnt shake hands with Manou after the game, just pushed it away

[Adelaide Hawk]

That's an interesting point CP, it's sort of along the lines of the one I was making. Why is it some forms of conning umpires appear to be acceptable, whereas others are not?

I went to an ATCA game today and have come to the conclusion that by questioning umpiring decisions on television via hawkeye, referrals, etc, we have created a generation of cricketers who simply will not accept an umpire's decision, unless it goes their way of course.

In the 72 overs bowled, I probably heard at least 100 appeals, followed by the mandatory shaking of the head and glaring at the batsman and umpires after the appeal was turned down, then the bowler's continued shaking of the head as he walked back to his mark. I saw one bowler continue to plead his case to the umpire long after it was given not out.

Anything that hit the pads .. appeal. Anything that passed outside the edge of the bat ... appeal.

When a batsman was out, there was the stare of disbelieve before the long walk back, shaking the head as they went. Nobody accepts the umpire's decision any more, and the game is poorer for it. If players showed as much aggression batting, bowling and fielding as they do disputing decisions, they would be better for it.

Maybe Dedja is right, perhaps the umpire should just say "not out stupid" and get on with it.

[JK]

Maybe Dedja is right, perhaps the umpire should just say "not out stupid" and get on with it.

It's a fair question, and one which has a lot of merit ... There's a lot to be said for zero tolerance umpires (in any sport) that are tough enough to stand their ground, yet all sports die without umpires and regardless of personal characteristic's, it should be their ability to adjudicate that earns them a gig.

Surely the problem (or at least a fair chunk of it) lies with the governing bodies not utilizing strict enough controls on dissent or any form of breaching of desired player code of conduct?

[redandblack]

Agree totally, AH,. that's one reason why I started this thread.

Interesting point, CP, which I'd like to discuss further as soon as I can.

[dedja]

Maybe Dedja is right, perhaps the umpire should just say "not out stupid" and get on with it.

It's a fair question, and one which has a lot of merit ... There's a lot to be said for zero tolerance umpires (in any sport) that are tough enough to stand their ground, yet all sports die without umpires and regardless of personal characteristic's, it should be their ability to adjudicate that earns them a gig.

Surely the problem (or at least a fair chunk of it) lies with the governing bodies not utilizing strict enough controls on dissent or any form of breaching of desired player code of conduct?

Maybe it's me being old fashioned but the governing bodies are taking away responsibility from the umpires and the umps themselves are seen to be too afraid to umpire ... for eg. an umpire won't give an obvious run out in 'cause he's too scared to be seen on the big screen as wrong. The best umpires (I would think in any sport) are the ones that command respect by giving strong decisions (and sometimes they are wrong) but can do it with authority. They talk to the players and let them know who's in charge (discretely without being the centre of attention a la the AFL)

So in the case of excessive appealing, what I would love to see (and I'm sure it would have happened 30 years ago) is the umpire telling the players to tone it down and that because of their stupid appealing then next 60-40 (as a 50-50 should be in favour of the batsman anyway) isn't going their way. With stump mikes and the extensive TV coverage the umpire wouldn't be able to do that now and even worse, the fielding team can call for the 3rd umpire to reverse the decision.

Who'd be an umpire these days? ...

[FlyingHigh]

Maybe Dedja is right, perhaps the umpire should just say "not out stupid" and get on with it.

It's a fair question, and one which has a lot of merit ... There's a lot to be said for zero tolerance umpires (in any sport) that are tough enough to stand their ground, yet all sports die without umpires and regardless of personal characteristic's, it should be their ability to adjudicate that earns them a gig.

Surely the problem (or at least a fair chunk of it) lies with the governing bodies not utilizing strict enough controls on dissent or any form of breaching of desired player code of conduct?

Maybe it's me being old fashioned but the governing bodies are taking away responsibility from the umpires and the umps themselves are seen to be too afraid to umpire ... for eg. an umpire won't give an obvious run out in 'cause he's too scared to be seen on the big screen as wrong. The best umpires (I would think in any sport) are the ones that command respect by giving strong decisions (and sometimes they are wrong) but can do it with authority. They talk to the players and let them know who's in charge (discretely without being the centre of attention a la the AFL)

So in the case of excessive appealing, what I would love to see (and I'm sure it would have happened 30 years ago) is the umpire telling the players to tone it down and that because of their stupid appealing then next 60-40 (as a 50-50 should be in favour of the batsman anyway) isn't going their way. With stump mikes and the extensive TV coverage the umpire wouldn't be able to do that now and even worse, the fielding team can call for the 3rd umpire to reverse the decision.

Who'd be an umpire these days? ...

Always an interesting discussion dedj, AH, CP, R&B.
I watched the "Amazing Adelaide" DVD last night (2nd Test v Poms, 2006), and I think the referral system could actually help the problem of excess appealing - obvious example was Strauss' dismissal in the second innings (caughtr at bat-pad when he missed it by a mile). Perhaps, with the referral system, such appeals will be less frequent as the fielding team now knows it can have the decision overturned and so there is nothing to be gained. Hopefully it means that when they do appeal it will be closer to out, and the umpire can make a valid judgement, and if he is shown to be wrong it is only be the barest of margins and everyone can accept it was a slight misjudgment rather than a complete howler (like Strauss' was) - think of how many more times the referral was used in a tight decision compared to real howler this summer.
How this game could have been changed by Strauss being given not out at a very critical stage, and, to a lesser extent Aderson and Harmison when the time remaining was becoming critical.
This is not to say I'm necessarily in favour of the referral system, but got to thinking how it could be a positive for the game, or is all of the above just a bit idealistic in todays professional game?

[JK]

The best umpires (I would think in any sport) are the ones that command respect by giving strong decisions (and sometimes they are wrong) but can do it with authority.

Sounds like Darrell Hair .. Whether he was right or wrong, I dont think anyone could ever accuse him of taking a soft stance, but look where it got him.