The Businessman's Game

Integrity? Does it have any place in the modern game? Given the big money stakes and winner-take-all mentality that now pervades professional sport, including cricket, can we rely on outdated notions of integrity and honesty to guide the game? Is it fair on the players/coaches to burden them with this responsibility when they are judged (and employed) purely on the basis of their win/lose ratios?

Should we now accept that all decisions be left to umpires and officials, thereby relieving players of the tensions that seem to be dogging the game when it comes to walking, low catches, excessive appealing or bad light? Many of the recent cases involving bad blood between players or officials can be traced back to some on-field incident where someone’s integrity was questioned. Remove that onus on the players, coaches or managers and hand it all over to the umpires and the match referee. Will that result in a change of atmosphere where decisions are accepted in good grace and players are not looking accusingly at each other.

Think back to last week’s ODI in the West Indies when John Dyson made the wrong call on D/L calculations and (arguably) cost West Indies the game. It boiled down to a simple integrity test that should no longer be in the hands of the players or coaches. It’s clear that bad light is now a strategic tool that is cynically employed to win matches (or avoid losing). It’s no longer about the physical danger to the combatants – last week’s incident proved that teams will accept the bad light offer if it suits them and yet will happily continue batting in that same light if it does not suit them to come off. That’s just the way the game’s going right now – it’s about the bottom line. Winning or losing.

This bad light situation is not just a function of cricket at the top level. Even in Z Grade club cricket, it is rarely ever used as an escape from physical danger. As far as I understand it, light should only be offered when players are in physical danger so why do so many cricketers (including yours truly) treat is as a cynical clause to avoid losing a wicket, dropping a catch or winning/losing/drawing a game? Easy answer? Because we can. It's got nothing to do with physical danger.

Why not just leave it purely in the hands of the umpires to decide when to come off for bad light, irrespective of which team is in front. Are there any other professional sports that leave similar decisions to the players? If we accept that umpires are neutral, then their decision should be accepted with equanimity. If we can’t agree that umpires are neutral, then we’ve got bigger problems.

Likewise with contentious catches and the issue of walking: it’s clear that integrity is not something that can be used as a moral weapon any more. Different players have different codes they stick by. Some players change their own codes depending on the match situation or current form. Some players are known for walking but see no moral contradiction about appealing for catches that are clearly not out. So again, why not take it out of their hands and just leave it to the umpires to adjudicate?

Of course this depends on the players having the maturity to then accept good and bad decisions with relatively few histrionics. Sure, there will always need to be some allowances made for that instinctive flash of disappointment at a poor decision but if the tantrums are prolonged and meant for public consumption, harsh penalties (suspensions) will soon create a culture of respect and good grace.

The referral system accentuates the need for this cultural shift. It further encourages players to stand their ground and see if the third umpire reprieves them, even when they know the truth. Even in rugby codes, players who have clearly dropped the ball over the line, celebrate with their team-mates and hope that the video referee doesn’t spot the indiscretion. It’s cynical but it’s also their profession – why should we expect integrity from professional athletes when their employers and the business world at large are not held to those standards?

Earlier this week, IPL officials and the CEO of Cricket South Africa denied outright that there had been any discussions about the IPL being moved from India. Their indignant denials almost made me feel guilty for daring to believe those crooked journalists. A few days later, the deal is done and no hint of shame from these very same officials who claimed that no such conversations had ever taken place. Clearly, the IPL is not an acronym for Integrity Premier League.

I’m sure the umpires will groan inwardly at yet another responsibility being foisted on them but ultimately, as sport becomes a business and athletes become businessmen, umpires should be the only ones empowered to regulate this market. It is a market governed by the forces of win or loss, and sadly, all too sadly, we may have to accept that cricket will no longer be a canvas for nobler sentiments.

Was it ever thus? Perhaps it is nothing new.