Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes - The Businessman's Game

Think back to last week’s ODI in the West Indies when John Dyson made the wrong call on D/L calculations and (arguably) cost West Indies the game. It boiled down to a simple integrity test that should no longer be in the hands of the players or coaches. It’s clear that bad light is now a strategic tool that is cynically employed to win matches (or avoid losing). It’s no longer about the physical danger to the combatants – last week’s incident proved that teams will accept the bad light offer if it suits them and yet will happily continue batting in that same light if it does not suit them to come off. That’s just the way the game’s going right now – it’s about the bottom line. Winning or losing.

This bad light situation is not just a function of cricket at the top level. Even in Z Grade club cricket, it is rarely ever used as an escape from physical danger. As far as I understand it, light should only be offered when players are in physical danger so why do so many cricketers (including yours truly) treat is as a cynical clause to avoid losing a wicket, dropping a catch or winning/losing/drawing a game? Easy answer? Because we can. It's got nothing to do with physical danger.

Why not just leave it purely in the hands of the umpires to decide when to come off for bad light, irrespective of which team is in front. Are there any other professional sports that leave similar decisions to the players? If we accept that umpires are neutral, then their decision should be accepted with equanimity. If we can’t agree that umpires are neutral, then we’ve got bigger problems.

Likewise with contentious catches and the issue of walking: it’s clear that integrity is not something that can be used as a moral weapon any more. Different players have different codes they stick by. Some players change their own codes depending on the match situation or current form. Some players are known for walking but see no moral contradiction about appealing for catches that are clearly not out. So again, why not take it out of their hands and just leave it to the umpires to adjudicate?

Of course this depends on the players having the maturity to then accept good and bad decisions with relatively few histrionics. Sure, there will always need to be some allowances made for that instinctive flash of disappointment at a poor decision but if the tantrums are prolonged and meant for public consumption, harsh penalties (suspensions) will soon create a culture of respect and good grace.

The referral system accentuates the need for this cultural shift. It further encourages players to stand their ground and see if the third umpire reprieves them, even when they know the truth. Even in rugby codes, players who have clearly dropped the ball over the line, celebrate with their team-mates and hope that the video referee doesn’t spot the indiscretion. It’s cynical but it’s also their profession – why should we expect integrity from professional athletes when their employers and the business world at large are not held to those standards?

Earlier this week, IPL officials and the CEO of Cricket South Africa denied outright that there had been any discussions about the IPL being moved from India. Their indignant denials almost made me feel guilty for daring to believe those crooked journalists. A few days later, the deal is done and no hint of shame from these very same officials who claimed that no such conversations had ever taken place. Clearly, the IPL is not an acronym for Integrity Premier League.

I’m sure the umpires will groan inwardly at yet another responsibility being foisted on them but ultimately, as sport becomes a business and athletes become businessmen, umpires should be the only ones empowered to regulate this market. It is a market governed by the forces of win or loss, and sadly, all too sadly, we may have to accept that cricket will no longer be a canvas for nobler sentiments.

Was it ever thus? Perhaps it is nothing new.

All good points Michael but what about the umpires themselves. A recently retired umpire is widely perceived to be biased against one team. His blatant errors have cost that team several critical matches. He was even caught on camera taunting a senior player belonging to that team. When the team in question complained to the ICC, this umpire threw a tantrum just like the players you accuse of cynically manipulating the rules. He blamed money power for his removal half way through a Test series. Why are umpire holy cows? Why don't you take this umpire and examine all his decisions to balance the paens of praise coming his way on the rest of Cricinfo? You could even rope in a statistician to prove (or disprove) accusations of bias. Journalistic integrity Michael. Do you have it? Does anyone? Do a Google search. You'll find fans from this country have blogged about their frustration. Note: I am not taking any names because that could be an excuse to not publish my comment.

Well, if you're honest, you have to be completely honest. If you walk when you nick it, you don't appeal when you know the ball whizzes past the edge. You don't claim catches that you're not sure about. Conversely, if you're a 'non-walker' and you think it's the umpire's job to make decisions, you stick to the same theory when you're FIELDING as well, instead of saying the fielder's word should be taken for it.

Why? Because these things give you a reputation. For instance, Gilchrist gained a bit of an 'honest guy' name with his whole 'walking off in the world cup semi-final' thing, which he traded for dismissals which he knew were not out. What was his reason? Being a walker is HIS decision, whereas appealing is a team decision. And my response to that is 'Codswallop'.

As long as players decide on what they want to be and stick with it, I don't mind what they go with. But now all we see around us is convenient doubles standards.

it's not like cricket's the only game that's commercial. Jackets and cars in the Grand Prix look more like commerical organisms. Pepsi is always on the look out to compete with Coca Cola. The Arsenal Stadium's renamed as Emirates. The sponsorship earned them a price tag of over a hundred million pounds. Aston Villa is sponsored by Acorns. Chelsea tops have Samsung printed on their chests. Cricinfo.com gives out ads of UFONE to the Pakistani users.
In Pakistan, Ufone competes with Telenor - Telenor competes with Zong - Zong competes with Mobilink. Marketing has become a way of life. And I know a lot of you won't agree with me. But it's a fact you have to live with. If you don't agree; take a look around your house.
And go live in a cave with sewn clothes made of leaves. Your cell phone is branded. Your shoes are branded. Your notebook is branded. The operating system you use competes with its competitors.

"I think Jay is a bit full of himself." Arent't we all Andrew? You ignored words like "perception" and "disprove" in my comment. Why, I didn't even write, "...blatant 'errors' have...." although I admit I was tempted. As it happens it was not my intention here to criticize the umpire in question-although I think his actions on more than one occasion have been condemnable. I merely wanted to urge Michael not to treat umpires as if they are above reproach. Umpires are professionals who ought to be held to the same standard as the players they judge. Why doesn't Cricinfo examine the issue of systematic umpire bias? A statistical analysis would be ideal but even a cogent write-up could help silence what you would doubtless describe as my wagging Indian tongue. And on that note, are you bucking for the recent retiree's job? I am an Indian fan. I assure you I have nothing against Ponting's plan, merely his insincere implementation of it. Yet somehow it is killing me. Are you perhaps, biased?

Hi Jay. You make a good point mate. But, as I said in my article, if we can't accept the notion of neutral umpires, then we have bigger problems than the topics I raised. We almost have to make that assumption of neutral, unbiased umpires or everything else is a state of chaos. If some umpires are biased or incompetent, that just strikes at the very heart of everything else that follows. In that case, we haven't really got much of a game.
In many respects, I'm with Sharath in his general observations. Regardless of nationality, I just don't understand how anyone can wax lyrical about certain aspects of "fair play" and then conveniently disregard other aspects. I refer to issues like walking, sledging, unfair appealing etc. I have never understood why it's wrong to illegally doctor a ball but it's apparently OK to abuse an opponent. They are both not in the rules of cricket so why is one crime any worse than another, esp if done with a view to gaining an unfair advantage.

Good on yer, Brendon. Jay, as an Indian, and an Indian fan, all right already with Sydney, okay? Read the scorebook: It's done; they won. And there was a 2-0 scoreline in the next series to give us incentive to move on. I would agree though that for all the hosannahs being showered by Cricinfo on that retiring umpire, there should be some minor recognition of the fact that he was (unbiasedly) incompetent. His mocking of a player, caught on camera as it was, should have invited censure. And wasn't he part of the 2007 WC Final fiasco as well? For the rest, i think Sharath got it right -- and what he said addresses Andrew's suggestion that the Great and Good Ponting's Will Be Done. You can't be a non-walker as a batsman AND expect to have your Word trusted when you're on the field. And yes, that goes for Sachin's recent 'uncertain' catch too. (I thought it was out on replays, but then, hey, i'm Indian.) Nobody's word is god. Bring on the chaos, Jeh! Muahahahahah!

Michael: Fair enough and thank you. However, I have no trouble understanding the ethical inconsistencies troubling you. People make a virtue out of compulsion which of course leaves them free to practice their vices. For example, how does a churchgoer, pledged to abstain from pre-marital intercourse, define sex? Why is it OK for archers to get better than 20-20 vision using Laser Eye Surgery (LASIK) but NOT OK for them to use beta blockers? Simple. One has been legislated upon and the other has not. I am sure sportsmen with surgically enhanced, parabolic corneas would be shocked if you equated them with dopers. Accountants help people exploit loopholes to legally minimize tax payments. Yet, in a civil society, you would think citizens want to contribute to the common good. In cricket, sledging isn't even defined, so those with a stomach for it, adopt it as a tactic. Introducing rules does foster consistency but the rules themselves are arbitrary and oftentimes designed by the powerful.

Jay, your intelligent and eloquent observations are very much appreciated. You've articulated some issues that were lurking in my subconscious but hadn't quite made it to the surface until you brought it up. It gives me some great material for a future blog! Thanks.
Yes, your points about surgical enhancement etc are good ones. I suppose I was making a comparison between tactical, strategic things like sledging, ball-tampering, bad light, cheating etc. The physical aspect of human improvement is another matter altogether and it's not straightforward. I suppose, people's physical abilities have always been a natural advantage or disadvantage in sport so how do we legislate for that? The deliberate surgical eyesight enhancement - is that any different to a shoulder reconstruction? You raise some really interesting ethical dilemma's and I'm still trying to get my head around it. It probably needs a better brain than mine to dissect this debate.