Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Wink, wink, SLAM, BANG

A beamer is the worst form of offence, because it's dangerous and you can never prove it's deliberate. So it would seem Mike Atherton is justified in calling for a one-match suspension of Sree Santh for bowling one at Kevin Pieterson in the second test at Trent Bridge. What's wrong with the remedy, however, is its ad-hocism. What is the punishment that the English players should get for leaving jelly beans on the pitch, or ostensibly using them to tamper with the ball? How do you deal with Matt Prior's 'deliberate' distraction of Indian batsmen? You can't wink at 'cheating' of that sort, and then cry hoarse over a beamer. What's missing is a clear ICC code that lists all the familiar offences: sledging and abuse, blocking the path of a batsman, picking up a ball on the follow-through and hurling it back towards the batsman when there's no chance of a runout, jostling a batsman while changing ends or shuffling the field, chucking or bowling a beamer, running on the pitch, tampering with the ball in any way... As soon as an offence like this is recorded on camera or caught on microphone or seen by an umpire, it should automatically draw a warning, suspension or ban. If they can do it in football, which is more fast-paced and physical, why not cricket? And if they won't have a strict code, then let there be a free-for-all. Why crib?

6 comments:

Golandaaz said...

Mike Atherton's comments on the beamer issue are worth further discussions. A beamer can cause physical harm and batters can die.

That in itself ought to prompt the ICC to do whatever it can to eliminate "intended" beamers.

While it will be next to impossilble to confirm "intent", I would recommend a "guilty until proven innocent" policy.

A beamer qualifies the offender to an automatic ban for a fixed number of games or duration with the right to appeal. During the appeal it is the offenders responsibility to prove the "accident" in the incident

straight point said...

i think we should adopt running on pitch kinda a solution..

like if a bowler bowls beamer automatically he should be put on warning and next repeat of act (if in the same match) should put him off for whole match.

and if it happens again in lets say duration (that can be fixed like 5 matches or so) he should be immediately put off for whole match plus one match suspension without a right to appeal...

this will (no right for appeal) should curb any "intentional or un-intentional" beamer and captain will be vary of these bowlers before picking them for match coz it could seriously jeopardize their chances (winning/saving) for a match...

Sumit Chakraberty said...

yes golandaaz, sp, i agree the best way to deal with all such offences is to invoke automatic punishment, whsoe degree can be varied according to the severity of the offence. the punishment should not be monetary - it should have an impact on teh player, team and game. at present, too much is left to the discretion of the umpires and match referees, who respond in different ways at different times. basically, the umpires have to be told to get strict and clean up the game as they did in tennis and soccer. the defence usually made for going easy - that the game needs the passion and aggro - doesn't hold water if you look at what's happened in those sports which are as popular as ever, if not more.

Samir Chopra said...

Here is one suggestion. Get rid of the match referee. This is long overdue. Grant more powers to umpires, and set up a three strikes-you're out system for an agreed-upon list of offences. The "out" could be a ban, penalty runs, or suspension for the innings.

Tugga said...

Sumit

Agreed with your views on a ICC code of conduct on sledging and chanters. But how fair has ICC been in handing out the verdicts in the sledging affairs ? How many times have we seen an English or an AUssie being hammered by the match referee? Santh got rightly pulled up, but what happened to Ian Bell, KP and Cook -- the jelly bean kids trio ?

The thing is we need to have a fair and impartial view to the offence. No matter its been done by subcontinental teams who are most prone to the "fine" and "penalty" than the subjudiced English or Aussie teams.

Sumit Chakraberty said...

tugga, true. but instead of lamenting about the bias, i would blame our board for not being more proactive on these issues.