RED CARDS! PLAYERS MUST SET THE RIGHT EXAMPLE
Virat Kohli and Steve Smith are to be “reminded of their responsibilities” by the ICC match referee prior to the third Test between India and Australia in Ranchi next week. So that’s all right then... Never mind that both captains leapt across the line of acceptable behaviour during the last Test in Bangalore, Smith deliberately flouting the regulations governing the use of DRS by appealing for guidance from his dressing room over whether to call for a review and Kohli, first in his loud and aggressive response to that, then in going as far as is possible to go in calling his opposite number a cheat – without actually using the word cheat.
Never mind that Kohli had also showed clear dissent after reviews failed to save him from being given out lbw to Josh Hazlewood in his second innings, his reaction demonstrating he felt he got a nick, which TV replays simply did not pick up.
Never mind that both sides had the sledge-ometer turned up to eleven throughout the match – umpires Nigel Llong and Richard Illingworth in frequent discussions with both skippers to turn it down, Mitchell Starc the giver and receiver of send-offs, Ajinkya Rahane, Ravi Ashwin and Steve O’Keefe all taken to task by the umps for overdoing the chat.
Match referee Chris Broad deemed no further action was necessary because, according to ICC chief executive Dave Richards: “We have just witnessed a magnificent game where players from both teams gave their all and emotions were running high during and after the match.”
There are two ways of looking at all this. First, within reason, anything goes and it is up to the umpires to intervene and keep order.
Second, the way the match was played is just the latest example of how close Test cricket can come to anarchy when the players deem anything goes and it is up to the umpires to intervene and keep order.
For the fact is that while the match had all the ingredients of a minor classic, showing once again what drama and excitement can be created when the bowlers are given something to bowl on, and what level of skill is required by batsmen in the same conditions, all that would have still applied if the game had been aggro-free, and how much better for cricket it would have been.
And whatever the players would have you believe, nothing influences the next generation of cricketers like the example of the stars they look up to now, and if it’s okay for Kohli, Smith – two of the best batsmen in world cricket – and seemingly everyone else on the field in Banglaore to behave like petulant playground bullies, some youngsters will need a lot of persuading it isn’t good enough for them.
In the days leading up to the match, the ICC announced they were to implement the recommendations of the MCC Cricket Committee, commonly held to be the guardians of the laws and traditions, in authorising umpires to send players off
The way this match was played is just the latest example of how close Test cricket can come to anarchy when the players deem anything goes
for serious breaches of behaviour.
According to John Stephenson, MCC’s head of cricket: “We felt the time had come to introduce sanctions for poor player behaviour and research told us that a growing number of umpires at grass-roots level were leaving the game because of it.
“Hopefully these sanctions will give them more confidence to handle disciplinary issues efficiently, whilst providing a deterrent to the players.”
That the time had come for such action is beyond dispute. So, on the face of it, three cheers for the MCC and ICC.
Studying the offences for which, from October 1, you will be liable to expulsion from the field, however, we should probably take back at least one of them, for it does appear a player would really have to go some to pull it off.
Level 1 offences, for example, which include excessive appealing and showing dissent at an umpire’s decision, will get your team docked five penalty runs, but only after an initial warning and second breach.
Level 2 offences carry the same penalty, which seems somewhat lenient as they include throwing a ball at another player or making deliberate physical contact with an opponent.
Level 3 offences? Now we’re getting somewhere, you might think. For, if you were to intimidate an umpire or threaten to assault another player, team official or spectator, not only would you cost your team five runs, you would also find yourself on the sidelines, but only for a set number of overs – not that harsh, in fact, when you consider the courts might view such activities as common assault.
Indeed, under the terms of Level 4, it seems almost the only way for you to incur the severest punishment of banishment for the rest of the match is by “threatening an umpire or committing any act of violence on the field of play”. Yet, as this final transgression, as I’m sure the legal-eagles will confirm, is also against the laws of the land, an early bath at the cricket would be the least of one’s concerns.
And just to prove the leaders of world cricket have a sense of humour, should the offending player be batting at the time: “He/she will be recorded as ‘retired out’.” Forgive me, but I don’t think I’ll ever stop chuckling at that one.
I’m all for the awarding of penalty runs for the lower grade offences, so long as they are applied consistently and without fear or favour.
Yet, as for the idea of red cards cleaning up the game, it is hard to escape the feeling that these sanctions are not so much the ultimate deterrent as the ultimate acceptance that the only way a player is ever going to be removed from the field of play is if they go absolutely tonto.
In the meantime, the best one can hope for is that the players themselves see the folly and danger of some of their behaviour and commit to cleaning up the game from within.
And wouldn’t it be something if Smith and Kohli, “reminded of their responsibilities”, took the lead on that next week in Ranchi to set the right example to those onlooking youngsters?