view to providing evidence to support
the possibility of the sanctions being
part of the redrafted Laws in 2017.
The use of the word ‘evidence’ is very
interesting because it emphasises a
point missed by most newspaper
commentators, which is that the main
purpose of these sanctions is not to use
them per se (important though that is if
the need arises), but to act as a deterrent
and be a proactive preventative tool to
encourage better behaviour, as well as a
reactive tool with which to sanction
poor behaviour. It is suggested that if
and where the ‘threat’ of sanctions is
introduced, there will be evidence of a
general improvement in player attitudes
and behaviour, as well as a decrease in
the number of reports made by umpires
– this was certainly the experience of a
similar trial carried out in New Zealand.
It is interesting that most of the press
comment was broadly in support of the
MCC’s initiative, with David Lloyd being
the most vociferous in favour of
introducing permanent and temporary
suspensions immediately, and of using
them as they do in other sports. Lloyd
recognises that there are very few
serious incidents in international cricket
(although if anybody thinks that
international cricket is completely
immune from the problem, listen to the
BBC podcast of Alison Mitchell’s
interview with Darryl Harper). However,
the fact is that international cricket is
played in front of four official umpires
and a match referee. The players
suffer a loss of earnings if they
misbehave, and the ICC Chief Executive
has made it clear that they will crack
down on excessive sledging between
players at the World Cup, saying first
offenders can expect heavier fines,
while repeat offenders face suspensions.
Not so elsewhere, and both Lloyd and
former Test umpire John Holder identify
correctly that whilst there is a problem
in county cricket, the most serious issue
to address is that of the deteriorating
standards of player behaviour in club
and league cricket.
Scyld Berry noted that it is for the
amateur game that MCC’s introduction
of these unprecedented powers is
intended – and the lower rather than
upper reaches. He also notes that bad
behaviour on the cricket field has
usually resulted from poor umpiring,
and that where the game is umpired by
two well qualified officials, in full
possession of their faculties, the players
are less likely to consider themselves
above the Laws but, even accepting
that, it is now necessary for cricket to
suspend a player in order to preserve
the game’s special quality as a physical
yet non-contact team sport.
He goes further: ‘We may lament the
times we live in, and the erosion of
respect for authority in society as a
whole, but the MCC, as guardian of the
game’s Spirit and Laws, has to do
something to arrest the quantifiable
increase in physical violence on the
field. The ethos of cricket, moreover, has
not so much changed as reversed in the
last generation. It used to be a game of
fear and defensiveness, when the only
attacking was done by the village
blacksmith. But in the white ball era, the
emphasis is on aggression in all respects.’
Roger Knight, the Chairman of ECB ACO
(and of course a former captain of both
Sussex and Surrey) is keen to see the
role of the captain upheld such that he
(or she) retains the ultimate
responsibility for the conduct of the
team and its players, as invested in them
by the Laws of the game as they are
currently written – specifically in the
Preamble that deals with the Spirit of
Cricket. He is not in favour of the
brandishing of cards of any colour (and
it is not MCC’s intention that they should
ever be used), but accepts that the idea
of actions being listed, which require a
batsman or fielder to be removed from
the field by his captain on the
instructions of an umpire, may work
because he recognises that we cannot
simply ignore the problem of growing
indiscipline as if it does not matter.
Michael Atherton on the other hand
thinks that red and yellow cards would
give umpires some concrete power
instead of relying on flabby notions
enshrined in the Spirit of Cricket. In
taking the opportunity to have another
crack at what he sees as the wellmeaning guff that suggests that the
players are beholden to uphold the kind
of unique Spirit (of Cricket) that in
reality has never existed, Mike widens
the discussion on dealing with
indiscipline and reopens the debate
between himself and Roger Knight that
was conducted in the pages of a
previous ACO magazine. Roger
contends that the problem with Mike’s
argument is that ‘intent’ is difficult to
prove for an official. If someone throws
a ball at the stumps and it hits the
batsman, is that a deliberate act or an
accident? If a batsman comes between
the fielder and the wicket and is hit by
the ball, is he deliberately or
inadvertently obstructing the field? If
the non-striker is marginally out of his
ground, is he attempting to take
advantage b