Bat and ball / Frank Gregan / 12 September 2011 /

Instances of dissent are on the increase in cricket, says Frank Gregan, and the game is in danger of losing what makes it so special

There's been a huge amount of changes in cricket recently, the vast majority of them for the good of the game. Sadly, there's been one thing that goes right against the grain, the type of conduct that is more suited to a football pitch than a cricket field, dissent towards the umpire. Aussie umpire Simon Taufel gave an interview last week and he wasn't slow to give his opinion on the matter.

"My view is, with the role of technology and the amount of scrutiny we're under these days, I think people have a greater appreciation for the challenge of being a match official.

"Personally, though, I'm not sure that has transposed to respect for an umpire's decision. I think we're creating an environment where it is okay for a player to question an umpire's decision, and that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

"As a player I was always taught to accept the umpire's decision and get on with the game. I think we're breaking that down a little bit."

He makes a very good point. Disputes with umpires in the past were few and far between and when they did happen they became big news, front page copy sometimes as was the case with Mike Gatting and Shakoor Rana back in 1987. That was a bitter and ugly dispute and similar major incidents have happened in recent years and there has been a noticeable increase in day to day dissent out in the middle, so much so that it is becoming common place.

It's not the example that should be set to the younger generation picking up a bat and ball for the first time. It's easy to sound like a boring old (insert any descriptive noun of your choosing here) about this subject but I know from first-hand experience that officials are treated according to the tradition of the sport.

It's a cultural thing. I played football and rugby during the same season one year in Australia. We'd train twice a week for each sport and on a Saturday play rugby in front of 3,000 people, pay 20 dollars subs for the pleasure of playing and call the referee "Sir."

On Sunday we'd play in front of one man and his dog, get paid whatever for playing and call the referee names that would make Chubby Brown blush! Why? Because that was the expected norm within both sports.

The umpire's decisions should be scrutinised but not by the players. The umpire's performance should be assessed by the relevant governing body and his fitness for purpose decided. In the meantime, out in the middle when tempers are getting frayed, the players should have it drummed into them that dissent is not acceptable.

Again, it comes down to being a cultural boundary, players taking responsibility and not supporting and joining in when their team-mates are mouthing off to the men in charge. Nothing shuts a player up in any team sport as efficiently as a blanket disapproval from his peers. Self-policing is an effective tool but if it doesn't work then the authorities need a proportional response in their armoury, something that will get the message across.

Losing 25% of a match fee is not a deterrent, being sent from the field of play and being suspended for x amount of games is. Ironically that would result in a nightmare, cricket aping football with supporters chanting "off, off, off!"

Friday sees the hapless Indians try once again to win a match on this tour. The visitors are [2.34] to finally come good with England [1.72] to back. India have been an embarrassment with bat and ball in hand but their sportsmanship has been first class.

The Ian Bell recall will long live in the memory, a reminder that international players are capable of playing the game in the right spirit. Let's hope the game in general follows that lead, otherwise we'll shortly be scouring the ODI markets looking for a price on a 'sending off!'

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: