The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) is responsible for the Laws of Cricket and is currently revising these Laws in order to produce a new Code for October 2017. It is a massive project and the Club discusses any proposed changes with the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the main cricket countries. At the same time, it is looking again at the Spirit of Cricket, which forms the preamble to the Laws. As a former Secretary & Chief Executive of MCC when the Laws were revised in 2000, I was very involved with the Laws Working Party. Now, as President of MCC, I am contributing to more discussions about the Laws and the Spirit of the Game.
The Spirit of Cricket is extremely difficult to define. There are some players and former players who believe that it is unnecessary and that the Laws should be sufficient to decide whether someone is playing fairly or not. Either what they do is right (within the Laws) or wrong (contravenes the Laws). Other people will say that there is an unwritten convention about the way in which the game of cricket is played and has been played for hundreds of years. In 2000 MCC attempted to put a formerly unwritten set of conventions into a definition of the Spirit of Cricket as:
- Respect for your opponents
- Respect for your own captain and team
- Respect for the role of the umpires
- Respect for the game and its traditional values
Respect implies that players will not stoop to any underhand or dubious tricks to gain an advantage; that all players will play fairly but hard in trying to win. Sledging is calculated to offend or distract an opponent. That shows no respect. Batting selfishly to improve a batsman’s own average shows little respect for his or her own team. It is not showing respect for the role of the umpire if a player disputes an umpire’s decision? Umpires stand in a match to help the players to enjoy the game and make decisions, to the best of their ability, when asked and appreciate help from players. The examples above are easy to understand, but what are the traditional values of the game?
Recently, in the quarter final of the Under 19 World Cup, a bowler ran out a non-striker, rather than bowling the ball, to win the game in the last over. The batsman was an inch out of his crease and, although the umpires asked the fielding captain whether he wished to withdraw the appeal, which he declined to do, they had to apply the Law and give the batsman out. This action understandably aroused a great deal of discussion and anger throughout the game. ‘Mankading’ is not forbidden in the Laws, but it has always been the convention to give a warning to the batsman on the first occasion that he backs up too early. It is in these situations that the Law states whether an action is right or wrong, but the Spirit of Cricket dictates whether an action is viewed negatively or as being acceptable. In Law the bowler was entitled to run out the batsman, who was marginally out of his crease. By traditional convention, the batsman should have been given one warning first.
There are many instances in cricket when a player has the opportunity to make such a decision. Assuming the batsman knows if he has nicked the ball to the keeper, should he walk or should he stand his ground in the hope that he is given not out? It is dishonest to pretend that the ball has not touched his bat or gloves and Law 32 states that “the striker is out caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No Ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground.” The argument often given for standing is that it is the umpire’s job to make decisions, but the majority of batsmen walk when they have hit the ball in the air to mid-off. Where is the difference in hitting the ball to the wicketkeeper? Does an element of dishonesty justify hoping to prolong an innings and score more for oneself and the team?
If a fielder knows that he has caught a ball on the half-volley, should he claim a catch? Should a wicketkeeper appeal for a catch when he knows that the ball has missed the bat and perhaps hit the batsman’s thighpad? The preamble states that it is against the Spirit of the Law to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out. There will, of course, be occasions when there is doubt. In these cases, it is acceptable to appeal to the umpire to make a decision.
If a bowler collides with a batsman and knocks him over while fielding the ball, should he then run him out? If a batsman picks up the ball and helps by throwing it back to the keeper or bowler, should a fielder appeal? If the ball is thrown and hits the batsman while he is running, should he run an overthrow if the ball goes past the fielder backing up? These are all incidents that occur from time to time.
The batsman who steals an overthrow after the ball has hit him will be credited with the additional runs and, if the ball crosses the boundary, the umpire has no choice but to signal four. The other examples above will result in the batsman being given out unless the captain of the fielding team decides to withdraw the appeal.
So what kind of game do we want to play? Do we want to say that the Laws will suffice and let winning be the end justifying the means? Or do we want to play within the Spirit of Cricket even if there is a chance of not winning the match? Is honesty and fair competition more important than personal or collective team success?
The question is the same whether we are speaking about a friendly game, a club match or a Test match. At the top level, players are highly paid for every victory, so there is an even greater temptation to do whatever it takes to win or gain an advantage. What has been so inspiring to me has been the way in which the New Zealand team has played under the captaincy of Brendon McCullum. The whole team has accepted the decisions of the umpires without question, despite suffering from a couple of recent decisions, which have been wrong and have turned the course of the match. In the ‘pink ball’ Test Match against Australia in Adelaide, the third umpire failed to spot the mark on the bat which made it clear that the Australian batsman had got a top edge to the keeper, which had been put to the Decision Review System (DRS). This decision led to the batting partnership scoring another sixty runs, which was possibly the difference between New Zealand winning and losing the match. The fact that the batsman walked most of the way to the pavilion, having seen the first replay, may have shown that he knew he had hit the ball. In a very recent Test Match, a wrong no-ball call by the umpire led to the batsman not being given out when bowled and scoring another two hundred runs, changing the whole course of the match.
The New Zealand team has also shown respect for their opponents and has applauded a fifty or century. They have played with a smile on their face and clearly enjoyed the challenge of competition without resorting to unacceptable sledging. Their World Cup results and the series in England showed that it is possible to be successful without stooping to dubious tactics. It was also interesting that England were drawn into playing with the same generous spirit and then the Ashes Series between England and Australia was played in similar vein. Brendon McCullum and his team have set the example, which others have followed, and I am delighted that he has accepted my invitation to deliver the MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey lecture on 6th June. This lecture will be streamed live from Lord’s and then available on the MCC website, www.lords.org. I very much look forward to hearing the second New Zealander to deliver this annual lecture. Martin Crowe was the first. I hope that many members of the Willows and the schools against which they play will hear this lecture and learn from what the captain of the Blackcaps has to say.
Schools which come to The Willows’ ground outside Christchurch will be aware of the way in which they are expected to play. Captains and their players will play as hard and as competitively as possible and yet will know that they must always play fairly, accepting the conventions that have stood the test of time. At the end of the match, whether won, lost, tied or drawn, players will enjoy the company of their opponents and, in many cases, catch up with friends from earlier matches. Many friendships have been formed in fierce competition and, although the result of a match will be forgotten over the years, these friendships will endure into the future.
Law 1.4, repeated in Law 42.1, is quite clear: “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.”
Unlike other team sports, such as football, hockey or rugby, where the referee has a whistle and can control the behaviour of the players, in cricket the Laws of the game leave the captain to control his players. One of the biggest debates at present within the MCC Laws committee is whether umpires should have yellow or red cards, giving them the power to send a player off the field for a serious breach of the disciplinary code. All umpires know, but often the players are not aware, that responsibility for discipline lies firmly in the hands of the captains of the teams. Do current players want this to change? The umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play and are called to make a decision about whether the batsman is out or not out, when there is an appeal, as well as deciding whether the conditions of ground, weather or light mean that it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place. The introduction of red and yellow cards will alter this and change the ethos of the game, providing umpires with different and increased authority on the field. There has been a trial of these cards carried out in New Zealand and the first impression is that the discipline on the field has improved. Other trials will be carried out in this English cricket season.
Whatever the outcome of these trials and the deliberations of the MCC Laws committee, we should remember the words of the Preamble: “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 responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.”
Ultimately, all players, umpires, scorers, administrators and others associated with cricket have a responsibility to enjoy the game and leave it in a better place when they retire from it. MCC, The Willows and all clubs need constantly to remind each other and individuals of this.