As the ICC grapples with the problem of poor player behaviour, a roadblock it keeps hitting is a lack of deterrents. As the code of conduct stands now, poor in-game behaviour is punished only with post-game sanctions, which leaves the door open for litigations and reviews. These penalties usually stand less than a favourable chance of sticking in a court of law, which means the ICC is extremely cautious with handing out serious punishments that might act as deterrents. It recently introduced a demerit points system, with points sticking to a player’s record for 24 months, but the poor behaviour has continued.
One of the suggestions to address this has been to impose in-game penalties, which carry a two-way advantage over the system as it stands now. Not only do in-game penalties have a much more serious impact on teams’ fortunes, which puts the onus on them to keep their players in check, they are also immune from being challenged in courts of law. That is, sporting misdemeanours tackled with sporting penalties with no need to involve big-shot lawyers and independent judicial commissioners.
David Lloyd and the late Martin Crowe have been big advocates of yellow and red cards while a concept of “sin bins”, wherein a player is taken off the field for a certain period of time with no replacement allowed, has also been proposed. As the ICC sits down to review its code of conduct thoroughly, in-game penalties will be discussed, but it is unlikely they will be adopted because of the potential for controversy.
“This has been a suggestion from a number of corners,” ICC CEO David Richardson said. “Suggestions of using yellow and red cards maybe. It has been discussed previously by the ICC. I think it will be discussed again in the future.
“I am not convinced it will help the situation. Often many of these offences fall into the bracket of whether the comments made were insulting or not. Yes if it is an obvious thing happening in front of the umpires and it is very clear that it is illegal, I can see there won’t be much argument if players were sent off the field or whatever.
“But you can imagine… especially when it comes to ball tampering and offences, which are difficult to prove. I can imagine the arguments that will happen if a key bowler or a key batsman is sent off the field for disciplinary reasons. Cricket in a funny way is an individual sport. If your key batsman is sent off incorrectly, and it turns out the umpire misheard him, or if a key bowler is sent off when he wasn’t actually tampering with the ball, in the end it could affect the game. I can imagine there would be even more controversy. I think it is something we need to consider, and I am sure it will be debated.”
That the umpires stand there with the responsibility to enforce a certain standard of behaviour with not much help by way of deterrents has been a cause for concern for the ICC. Which is why one of the tasks for those who review the code of conduct is to eliminate ambiguity around the offences and the punishments involved. “What we need to do is also help the umpires,” Richardson said. “If we are unclear with what we regard as acceptable behaviour and what is not, then obviously it becomes difficult for them to enforce it because it is unclear in their mind. If we do the review well, if we come out defining more clearly what is acceptable and what is not, it will make their job considerably easier, and they will be able to be more consistent going forward.”
Richardson contested the assertion that certain teams, when playing against certain others, tend to get away with poor behaviour in the name of a passionate contest. India, Australia and England when playing each other tend to produce unsavoury incidents, but don’t seem to get charged often enough under the ICC code of conduct; as of last August, only one out of 51 sanctions under the ICC code of conduct had come in games that involved two of these teams.
“It’s certainly not an intentional approach,” Richardson said. “If anything, [it happens] subconsciously. Look at total list of code of conduct offences, players from these particular teams have committed same number of offences as some of the other teams. I think general consistency is an issue we want to work on. I don’t think teams from particular countries are targeted and teams from particular countries are left to their own devices.”
When told it was only when these three teams play each other that an apparent bias surfaces, Richardson said: “If that has been the case in some people’s view, we certainly don’t want that to be case going forward. Trying to give you an example… If Australia thinks it is okay to sledge and swear at opposition and think that’s part of the game, we don’t go thinking that if that’s the case, we will tolerate it in that match.
“We want to apply rules as consistently as possible for all teams at all times. And this review will hopefully help develop that universal culture of what it means to play the game in a correct manner.”
Source: ESPN Crickinfo