THE NEWS that a panel is to examine the laws of cricket and look at possible changes surfaced a few days back. There were numerous issues raised by the man quoted in the news story, Australian umpires manager Tony Crafter, who was in London to help look at possible wide-ranging changes to the laws. For instance, he referred to the width of the bat, the material of which it is made, (remember Lillee and the aluminium bat?) the size of the ball and the pouch that now exists between the forefinger and thumb of the wicketkeeper's gloves.
Crafter indicated that one change which would definitely be incorporated was a limit on the width of the pouch between the forefinger and thumb of the keeper's gloves as this was, in a large measure, contributing to many of those stunning catches behind. I doubt anyone would have a complaint with this or with a change from wooden bats.
However, one matter that does raise fears is the fact that Crafter said the game’s lawmakers were looking at giving the umpires more power under Law 42. "Law 42.1 says the captains are responsible for ensuring that the game is played within the laws and within the spirit of the laws," he said."It’s generally felt that players have got away from that."
I, for one, heartily agree with that sentiment. But one must not forget that football's governing body, FIFA, had just such sentiments in mind when it asked referees, a couple of World Cups ago, to crack down on fouls in order that the game would flow. Even the most partisan observer would agree that things have now reached a pretty pass; the number of red cards given out at the World Cup that ends on July 12 is evidence.
In many cases, these red cards have helped to decide the fate of a match. England, Argentina and Germany have felt the effect of playing with 10 men and it has meant elimination from the competition. France went into the final without one of its best defenders, Blanc, the man being sent off over a questionable foul on a Croatian player in the semi-final.
One must not forget that this crackdown has also led to football players becoming much better actors on the field, pretending they have been tripped in the area or else faking fouls. The expulsion of Blanc is a case in point; the man at the receiving end did Hollywood proud.
So what does all this have to do with cricket? A great deal, in fact. There is a lobby which has for a long time felt that there should be ways of disciplining players, stricter ones than exist at present. And one way which has been spoken of is to make it the responsibility of the umpires and match referee as well to ensure "that play is conducted within the spirit of the game as well as within the laws", something which is now the sole responsibility of the captains.
Right now, no player can be sent off in a game of cricket. Neither can a player be banned from playing a subsequent match. There are fines. Period. If a player does create a situation which goes against the "spirit of the game" or questions an umpire's decision, his own cricketing authority may act against him. This can even lead to being dropped. But the match referee has no powers to do anything of this sort.
It would be interesting to know what kind of changes are being contemplated. But it would be better if changes which empower umpires or referees to act against players are avoided. Fines could be increased, a system of uniform punishments or suspensions (decided by the respective national authority) could be worked out. Above all, the players should also be consulted if such changes are to be made.