The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Cricket: The Laws, “playing culture” and Ethical Conduct

Jeff Cumberbatch – Chairman of the FTC and Deputy Dean, Law Faculty, UWI, Cave Hill

“It’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game that matters” –Gerry Richards in a postscript to his radio sports show in the 60’s

For the second year in succession, the West Indies Under-19 cricket team at the International Cricket Council’s World Cup competition has been involved in the dismissal of an opposing player that while unarguably within the laws of the game, may nevertheless conflict sharply with what some choose to call the spirit of the game.

It should be recalled that last year in the tournament in Bangladesh, the team ran out the non-striking Zimbabwean number eleven batsman with the match hanging on a razor’s edge; I believe that Zimbabwe needed to score three runs only to win the game. That decisive run-out was effected by way of the “Mankad”; the eponymous dismissal whereby the bowler pauses mid-stride in his run-up to break the stumps and thereby catch the non-striker, who is backing up too far, out of his ground. The spirit of the game, according to some, would have required that the bowler first warn the batsman not to venture out of his crease again otherwise he will suffer the consequences and be run-out.

On this occasion, against South Africa, the South African batsman played forward to a delivery which rolled back dangerously towards the stumps. The youngster, perhaps mindful of the rumoured perils of hitting the ball twice, watched the ball’s progress carefully, without touching it with his bat or hand, until it had come to a complete stop. He then proceeded, as he must have seen a number of his seniors do on countless occasions in Test and other matches, and in a spirit of assistance, to gently lob the ball to the wicketkeeper-captain who immediately proceeded to query the umpires as to whether this did not amount to a dismissal. In fact and in law, it does, and the batsman was accordingly given out for “obstructing the field”.

According to Law 37.1.1

Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.[Emphasis mine]

 Two points bear further observation here. First, it is doubtful whether the impugned action in this instance could be reasonably considered to have been a “wilful attempt to obstruct the fielding side” as is stipulated and, second, had the batsman indeed struck the still moving ball, he could not have been given out as he appeared to believe, on my interpretation of Law 34.3 –

The striker may, solely in order to guard his/her wicket and before the ball has been touched by a fielder, lawfully strike the ball a second or subsequent time with the bat, or with any part of his/her person other than a hand not holding the bat. [Emphasis added]

 Cricket might be popularly known as a game of glorious uncertainty. It is also a game of quirky oddities among which the current controversy might well be numbered. Unlike other games, cricket is not satisfied with mere rules; rather describing its regulations as the more lofty “Laws”. Moreover, befitting its appellation of the “gentleman’s game”, there exist a number of conventions that are applied in the course of the game and that, by definition, do not always accord with the letter of the Laws or require their strict enforcement.

For instance, there is nothing to prevent a batsman from taking advantage of a throw at the stumps that strikes his bat and goes away into the outfield to run extra runs as overthrows, but it is just not done. According to another axiom, it is not cricket. And while the “Mankad” form of dismissal may be justified in that the non-striker is availing himself of the advantage of completing a run over a shorter distance, and is thus contributory to his own demise, no similarly unfair or dishonest act was perceived in the most recent incident.

These behaviours are all part of the “playing culture” of the game. In their text, Sports Law (2001), Gardiner et al define playing culture as “informal and rarely defined rules of strategy”. The authors emphasize the negative aspects of this concept, instancing the use of “sledging” in cricket, but they also make reference to the clamant need for fair play generally in modern sport, as is illustrated at a general level by the prosecution of participator violence, the prohibition of drug abuse in sports and the proscription of the exploitation of young athletes.

The Council of Europe in its ministerial document, Code of Sports Ethics: Fair Play- the Winning Way (1992) defines fair play as “much more than playing within the rules. It incorporates the concepts of friendship, respect for others and always playing with the right spirit. Fair play is a way of thinking, not just a way of behaving. It incorporates issues concerned with the elimination of cheating, gamesmanship, doping violence (both physical and verbal) exploitation, unequal opportunities, excessive commercialization and corruption.”

The difficulty of applying these criteria directly to cricket would appear to be derived from the protean nature of the game where it is sought to assess a particular incident for fairness. The laws go in one direction, the playing culture or winning strategy goes in another and the code of ethics in yet a third way. It is this conundrum that makes it so complicated a task to critique the recent appeal of the West Indies captain. He was clearly within the laws; and the strategy of appealing proved effective in that context.

Should it at all matter that he is reported as saying that on reflection, given the identical situation again, he would not have appealed? This might suggest that his conscience is sufficiently pricked as to the ethical nature of his decision, but alas, there are no “do-overs” in this context.

The glorious uncertainty referred to above might appertain to more than the unpredictability of a result.

Tags:

40 Comments on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Cricket: The Laws, “playing culture” and Ethical Conduct”

  1. Pachamama January 21, 2018 at 7:01 AM #

    David

    Today is not a day for mock sport.

    Today is a day when we should be studying the impending failure of the British services giant called Carillion.

    That failure has all the hallmarks of the financialization of economy which this writer has been opining about for raaasssssousl years and which few have noticed.

    In the case of Carillion which has been given all types of government contracts by successive British governments spans a multitude of sectors and was an hegemon

    But at its centre it operated as a shadow bank and played the stock market with a maximum amount of its cash flows. These loses maybe at the central reason for this impending disaster.

    That strategic mindset has an unending multitude of affects – om pensioners, on small businesses, on government, on capitalism

    Carillion was indeed a Ponzi scheme, not unlike some well known to you.

    We are warning you again, look forward for a lot more over the next 24 months or so

    Any corporation which so lacks a strategic vision and rest on an undated notion that diversification could be some refuse are operating by the rules of a bygone era. But to seek refuse within financialization is not unlike jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

    Carillion was an international entity, without assets

    Your ‘correspondent’ from England, Hal Austin, was totally useless in informing you as to the state of affairs in his neck of the woods.

    Like

  2. Pachamama January 21, 2018 at 7:06 AM #

    https://www.carillionplc.com/

    Like

  3. David January 21, 2018 at 7:35 AM #

    It is interesting that the West Indies find itself on the bottom rung of world cricket in all forms of the game; a better showing in 20/20, and is the team inclined to perpetrate these indiscretions on the gentleman’s game.

    Like

  4. David January 21, 2018 at 7:38 AM #

    @Pacha

    Looks like there is hope. If the mother county is forced to clean up its act/regulatory framework, Barbados will benefit? Here it is we were led to believe that the British regulatory is better than the banana republic equivalent managed in Barbados and the region.

    Wonders never cease!

    Like

  5. millertheanunnaki January 21, 2018 at 8:37 AM #

    @ David January 21, 2018 at 7:38 AM

    As your well-informed PM Fumble Almighty said recently: ‘No country is perfect, including Barbados’.

    But the difference between imperfect Big England and just as imperfect Little England is that in Big England ‘regulatory-failure’ investigations will be carried out and any persons found to be complicit in financial irregularities and malfeasances will find themselves charged by Fraud Squad of the Metropolitan Police and appearing rather swiftly before the Old Bailey.

    Can you express the same level of confidence in the system of Justice in Little England fast becoming the shit hole of Justice according to the CCJ?

    Like

  6. Tony Trotman January 21, 2018 at 8:56 AM #

    A “mankad” dismissal is justified because the batsman is cheating. He or she is seeking to gain an unfair head start in order to complete a run.

    I can understand a bowler “taking a wicket anyway it comes” because cricket rules favour batsmen. For example, if a batsman is given “not out” after a lbw appeal – but the ball is “clipping” the stumps – the umpire’s decision is upheld. Shouldn’t the batsman be given out once the ball is hitting the stumps?

    Another example, is the maximum weight and dimensions of cricket bats that allow a batsman to easily “miss hit” a ball for six runs – although he or she was “deceived” by the pace of the bowler.

    Like

  7. David January 21, 2018 at 9:03 AM #

    Not sure who is disputing that it is cheating. The bigger point is that although rules exist the game cricket is wrapped in conventions that form the game as the majority appear to want it played.

    Like

  8. Pachamama January 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM #

    David

    These people and their systems are no less ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, clueless.

    Your man from England gets here and pontificates about Barbados as if an outlier

    But right in his own backyard there are no measureable differences

    This points to the efficacy of our master narrative of systemic failures everywhere

    Like

  9. David January 21, 2018 at 9:09 AM #

    What are you preaching Pacha, ”endtimes”? ”Domesday”?

    Like

  10. Pachamama January 21, 2018 at 9:36 AM #

    David

    We are not preachers.

    Know not of magical thinking

    It seems though that we’re at the end off an age

    This has happened many times before.

    You say you want change……………….well this is it.

    Of course at the end of these changes no humanoids maybe left

    And that may not be a bad thing.

    Like

  11. Sargeant January 21, 2018 at 9:43 AM #

    @Jeff

    You are missing the word “gamesmanship” which is de riguer in most sports and it was only a matter of time before it found its way into cricket. If you ever watch football most players who are tackled fall as if they are shot and proceed to roll around in obvious “agony”, this has become so widespread that it is now termed “diving” and is subject to penalty if in the opinion of the referee the “injured” player is embellishing the severity of the contact.

    In the examples of the WI youth team perhaps they are taking the phrase “by any means necessary” literally.

    Like

  12. Pachamama January 21, 2018 at 10:07 AM #

    The failures of WI cricket, in recent times, started in the early 1990s.

    It was the juncture when the Board sought to cease effective Control from the Lloyd-Richards dynasty ethos.

    That dynasty proved beyond doubt that success for us was best achieved when power was in the hands of the players not the colonial-minded bureaucrats on the board.

    Any management system which controlled world cricket for two decades and when it wanted to stage a world series (circa 2005) could do no better than beg regional governments to repair/replace stadia has no right to exist.

    A Board pretending to be the rightful inheritors of a vicious colonial mandate could only then seek to rest on the illegal largesse of people like Stanford.

    Everything these people have done has been a monumental failure. Their HPC has not produced a single world class player of the highest standard – a Viv Richards, a Brian Lara etc

    Even when these female ‘rabbits’ bring White men and Black lackeys from all over the world the change the very nature of our cricket – we see every batsman behaving more like a baseball batter. No player is allowed to remain still …………… until delivery

    This Board should never be forgiven for destroying a perfectly working system in order to benefit a succession of well-credentialed assholes.

    West Indies cricket is dead and will so remain for another hundred years, if the world last so long. So too is everything else!

    Like

  13. de pedantic Dribbler January 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM #

    David Mr Blogmaster, I agree that no one can dispute that a batsman who suffers a ‘Mankad’ dismissal was essentially not caught out trying to gain an extra advantage which is allowed by the rules – cheating.

    But as you and Jeff’s overall point point highlight we are in the midst of a society which embraces this win at all cost mentality..how the game is played is all about taking that extra advantage not allowed.

    Even had the WI won and eventually become champions again would “the strategy of appealing proved” to be effective…would the lads have been seen as true worthy champions in the eyes of their colleagues.

    Or is that style of hard edged behavior just seen as the actions of an ‘uncouth’, sledge-minded state of life.

    I find the action to be reprehensible myself. It’s just not ‘cricket’ as they would say, even if it is cricket being played 🙂 !

    Thus I disagree with the author’s final point that there is a ” conundrum that makes it so complicated a task to critique the recent appeal of the West Indies captain”.

    @Jeff, this lad was captain because I presume that along with his cricket skills he also displayed the nous and savvy to motivate his team and handle the issues ‘beyond the boundary’. Immediately after the appeal was upheld he should have recalled the batsman. In fact I wonder whether the umpire (I have not been following the tournament) quietly asked him if he wanted the appeal to stand…that would have been the thing to do.

    I would probably have gleefully accepted that type of dismissal in a 13 years olds lunch time inter-form match back in the day – and only barely. However, none of my colleagues who went on to that level would have done that on the big stage of a U-19 match.

    And all this clearly tells us why the intransigence seen at Carillon takes places so often…it is Enron, it is M F Global, it is Theranos…it is Madoff. All instances of young men/women who played a hard-edge youthful life that skirted rules sans decorum or decency and succeeded…then grew up to be hard-edge business leaders whose rule breaking caused international angst.

    Jeff, I presume that if one can seek a ‘mulligan’ in golf (an old man’s sport) that in some context of life there is some form of ‘do-over’…. just not where it really counts however!

    Like

  14. de pedantic Dribbler January 21, 2018 at 10:14 AM #

    that should read: “… was essentially not caught out trying to gain an extra advantage which is NOT allowed by the rules – cheating.

    Like

  15. David January 21, 2018 at 10:14 AM #

    @Dee Word

    Why is the West Indies the only team playing the game in ungentlemanly fashion as in the two high profiled examples?

    Like

  16. David January 21, 2018 at 10:15 AM #

    @Pacha

    We endorse your comment.

    Like

  17. Hants January 21, 2018 at 10:55 AM #

    @ David who wrote ” Why is the West Indies the only team playing the game in ungentlemanly fashion ? ”

    Sledging is also ” ungentlemanly” and Australian cricketers do this frequently. ”

    Also, the South Africa batsman should have left the ball. He got himself out.

    Like

  18. Hants January 21, 2018 at 10:59 AM #

    The object of playing competitive cricket should be to WIN at all costs as long as you play

    and adhere to the Rules/Laws of the game.

    Like

  19. David January 21, 2018 at 11:03 AM #

    Hants you are missing a not too subtle point, sledging is not given the same regard as the Mankad rule. You make a good point though, there is a lot of money and reputations at stake in the modern game.

    Like

  20. John January 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM #

    David January 21, 2018 at 10:14 AM #
    @Dee Word
    Why is the West Indies the only team playing the game in ungentlemanly fashion as in the two high profiled examples?

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    Because they can’t conceive of themselves winning in any other fashion.

    Like

  21. John January 21, 2018 at 11:12 AM #

    Today is not a day for mock sport.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    All sport is mock!!

    Like

  22. de pedantic Dribbler January 21, 2018 at 11:19 AM #

    Oh lawd, David don’t let we go there. That will invoke too many holey vexations.

    What I choose to reflect upon and use as my future-scope looking instrument is the wondrous team that played so gentlemanly under Sir Frank or those that handled severe adversity called ‘grovelling’ with very forceful attempts all within an acceptable manner.

    Even when we had racist players AND umpires deliberately thwarting our actions and caused our players to commit acts outside the rules that momentary on-field pique was understandable and we moved on still very respected across the cricketing world.

    So I really don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of how and why we are now seemingly so ungentlemanly.

    Some folks would lambaste Stollmeyer,, Capt Short et al as the unholy avatars that eventually led to a very militant WIPA in the face of Dinanath Ramnarine and down the rabbit hole we go…. so not me and dat, Mr Blogmaster….Jeff’s piece stands out nice and loudly without all that !

    Like

  23. Jeff Cumberbatch January 21, 2018 at 11:20 AM #

    @Jeff

    You are missing the word “gamesmanship” which is de riguer in most sports and it was only a matter of time before it found its way into cricket.

    @ Sarge, perhaps the word, yes, but not the concept…

    “Gardiner et al define playing culture as “informal and rarely defined rules of strategy”. The authors emphasize the negative aspects of this concept, instancing the use of “sledging” in cricket,”

    Like

  24. Pachamama January 21, 2018 at 11:22 AM #

    David

    Though we honour them both as cricketing gods, much has been left unsaid

    In the case of Viv, it was Sarwan who came to us and complained bitterly how he would only talk to Lara, when he was manager, as if everybody else was unworthy – hagiography you say?

    In the case of Lloyd, he was well-known for being a Thatcherite and seemed to allow personal interests to override player interests when he was manager.

    So while we are to be eternally grateful for the cricketing model for dominance which they gave us there remain contradictions which are yet to be resolved.

    Like

  25. John January 21, 2018 at 11:47 AM #

    Like

  26. NorthernObserver January 21, 2018 at 1:29 PM #

    The ball had come to a complete stop. The Umpire’s decision should have been ‘not out’.
    The rules (laws) need some altering, for clarity. Lest we forget, last week Barbados was again asked to review its laws on sexual acts between consenting adults.
    Once a law/rule is in place, we have no control over its interpretation, or when it ‘comes into play’.

    Like

  27. Georgie Porgie January 21, 2018 at 3:55 PM #

    INTERESTING THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER FROM IAN CHAPELL WHOA ACTUALLY PLAYED CRICKET AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL

    When I was nine years old, my father, Martin, was captaining a club side filled with young talent. An opposition youngster used his hand to stop the ball hitting his stumps and Martin appealed; the batsman was given out.
    On the ride home, Martin asked me what I thought about the decision and I replied; “It’s the law – you don’t stop the ball with your hand when batting.”
    “Good,” replied Martin, “I don’t ever expect to see you given out that way.”
    In all my years of playing cricket, at every level, I never – never ever – touched the ball when I was batting. Never mind the laws of the game or the pretentious spirit-of-cricket doctrine, I didn’t want the wrath of Martin coming down on my head.
    It’s like being Mankaded. If you back up properly, it won’t happen. If you don’t touch the ball when batting, you won’t be out obstructing the field.

    THOUGHTS FROM ANOTHER AUSTRALIAN CRICKET CAPTAIN
    Former Australia captain Ricky Ponting made his thoughts on the matter perfectly clear on Thursday night when commentating the KFC BBL on Network Ten.
    “You just know, don’t you? Don’t you know you can’t pick the ball up until the fielding team tell you you can pick the ball up,” Ponting said.
    “It’s their job to field. They can come and get it.
    “If it’s at my feet I’m not getting it for them. That’s just the way I was.”

    Like

  28. Georgie Porgie January 21, 2018 at 4:00 PM #

    THIS IS WHAT THE MCC-THE GUARDIANS OF THE RULES OF CRICKET THOUGHT OF THE SITUATION

    The guardians of the Laws of cricket, the Marylebone Cricket Club, have confirmed the contentious obstructing the field dismissal in the Under-19 Cricket World Cup this week was correctly handled by the umpires.

    On Wednesday, South Africa opener Jiveshan Pillay was dismissed obstructing the field when, after an attempted drive resulted in the ball dropping to his feet, he picked the ball up and threw it to West Indies captain and wicketkeeper Emmanuel Stewart.

    While the ball had come to a complete stop when Pillay picked it up, Stewart appealed and the umpires subsequently ruled that the batsman was out.

    The decision was immediately questioned on social media and by former players such as Australia Test legend Mark Waugh, who described the incident as “disgraceful”.
    But Law 37.4 states: “Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder.”

    The rule in question, however, justifies that the decision should have been ‘Out’. According to Law 37.4 (Returning the ball to a fielder), “Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder.” As per the new law, introduced last year, handling the ball rule applies before the striker has “finished playing the ball”, while obstructing the field applies afterwards.

    While Pillay was undoubtedly just trying to help his opponents out by throwing the ball to the wicketkeeper, the MCC pointed out that the officials made the correct decision once the West Indies appealed.

    In a post on its website, the MCC explained that when a batter touches the ball he/she could change the condition of it, which would be unfair to the bowling team.

    “It may seem harsh, but a scenario in which batsmen could, without any punishment, interfere with the ball would be far more problematic,” the MCC said.

    “Instead, all a batsman needs to remember is not to return the ball to any fielder without consent – as the popular adage goes: batsmen bat, bowlers bowl and let the fielders field.”

    IT SEEMS THAT FROM THE RULES THE UMPIRES MADE THE RIGHT CALL, AND THE WI CAPTAIN WAS IN HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL.

    THERE IS NO RULE IN THE CRICKET LAW BOOK THAT SAYS “SPIRIT OF THE GAME”

    ONE DAY WHEN I AM VERY DEMENTED, I WILL READ FOR A DEGREE IN LAW AT UWI, AND THEN I WILL TEACH LAW THERE, AND THEN WRITE SHITE ON BU ON SUNDAYS FOR THE BU MORONS TO COMMENT ON MORON-ICALY

    Like

  29. Tony Trotman January 21, 2018 at 4:04 PM #

    Law 37.4 is reproduced below. It appears that the batsman breached Law 37.4.

    “37.4 Returning the ball to a fielder

    Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder.”

    Source: https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-37-obstructing-the-field/

    Like

  30. David January 21, 2018 at 4:06 PM #

    And the the Captain apologized for betraying the SPIRIT the game is to be played.

    Like

  31. David January 21, 2018 at 4:07 PM #

    Ian Chappell a man who did not follow another of those conventions Jeff highlighted in his column.

    So Chappell decided that knowing he hit a cricket ball that was caught and stand his ground was not cheating. It was just ‘part of cricket’. You get some bad decisions, so you are entitled to get some good ones.

    But what is the difference between edging a ball to the keeper and being caught, and hitting a ball to cover and being caught? The answer is absolutely nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Georgie Porgie January 21, 2018 at 4:10 PM #

    The Windies found themselves at the centre of controversy in the previous edition of the U19 World Cup in Bangladesh when Keemo Paul ‘Mankaded’ Zimbabwe’s Richard Ngarava to secure a two-run win
    .
    Paul’s actions were condemned by Australia coach Darren Lehmann and former New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming, who called the incident “absolutely disgraceful behavior”.

    WHEN THE NEW ZEALAND BATSMEN DID NOT WALK WHEN THEY KNEW THEY WERE OUT IN 1980, ALTHOUGH THEY LATER ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE OUT– THIS WAS NOT CALLED “absolutely disgraceful behavior”. NO ONE THEN EFFLUXED BOVINE EXCREMENT ABOUT THE “SPIRIT OF THE GAME” THEN.

    WHEN STEPHEN WAUGH CHEATED CLEARLY AT THE OVAL AND HAD LARA DISMISSED IN 1995 TO DISRUPT OUR JOY OF THE SPANKING BY LARA AND HOOPER THAT MORNING THIS WAS NOT CALLED “absolutely disgraceful behavior”. NO ONE THEN EFFLUXED BOVINE EXCREMENT ABOUT THE “SPIRIT OF THE GAME” THEN.

    WHEN BROAD NICKED OFF BIG TIME IN 2013 IN THE UK AND DID NOT WALK THIS WAS NOT CALLED “absolutely disgraceful behavior”. NO ONE THEN EFFLUXED BOVINE EXCREMENT ABOUT THE “SPIRIT OF THE GAME” THEN.

    when Keemo Paul ‘Mankaded’ Zimbabwe’s Richard Ngarava IN 2016, HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME, BUT THIS WAS CALLED “absolutely disgraceful behavior”.

    IN THIS RECENT INCIDENT THE YOUNG WESTINDIAN DID NOT DISOBEY THE LAWS OF CRICKET, BUT HIS APPEAL IS “absolutely disgraceful behavior”.

    CLEARLY IT IS NOT WHAT YOU DO………..IT IS WHO DO IT! ah lie.

    Like

  33. GreenMonkey January 21, 2018 at 6:58 PM #

    Pacha wrote:
    David
    We are not preachers.
    Know not of magical thinking
    It seems though that we’re at the end off an age
    This has happened many times before.
    You say you want change……………….well this is it.
    Of course at the end of these changes no humanoids maybe left
    And that may not be a bad thing.

    George Hudson is a former economist on Wall Street:
    Hudson states that the problem originates with the privatization of finance. “Every society in history for the last 4,000 years has found that the debts grow more rapidly than people can pay,” he says. “The problem is a small oligarchy of 10 percent of the population at the top to whom all of these net debts are owed to. You want to annual the debts to the top 10 percent. That’s what they’re not going to do. The oligarchy is running things. They would rather annul the bottom 90 percent right to live than to annul the money that’s due to them. They would rather strip the planet and shrink the population and be paid rather than give up their claims. That’s the political fight of the 21st century.”

    Like

  34. GreenMonkey January 21, 2018 at 7:00 PM #

    My mistake: The economist’s name is Michael Hudson, not George Hudson

    Like

  35. NorthernObserver January 22, 2018 at 2:01 AM #

    @GP
    the UMPIRE(S) in cricket have significant authority and discretion.

    Consider
    20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.

    20.2 Ball finally settled
    Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.

    It is well within the Umpire’s scope to determine if and when a ball is “dead”. Had it been determined in the recent case the ball was dead, then the decision would have been ‘not out’. Note, they are not required to announce “dead ball”, though they can.

    The decision [out] was right, because the umpires determined the ball was not dead.

    Yet, it was equally possible for them to decide the ball was dead.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. David January 22, 2018 at 12:28 PM #

    When all is said and done there is a leadership vacuum in every sphere of society cricket included. It is no surprise the rich traditions and conventions of the game are being ignored. There will be no recovery of West Indies cricket in our lifetime.

    Like

  37. Donna January 22, 2018 at 4:36 PM #

    We all know that behaviour is only disgraceful when we do it. Nothing to see here. Having said that, I think we should give up on cricket. I cannot see us coming back from here. Young people are not really interested. The show is over.

    Like

  38. Hal Austin January 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM #

    Are we going to debate the undemocratic amendments to the Police Act being forced through parliament by this grossly incompetent attorney general? Or are we of the view the stop and searches, the curfews the bullying will not impact on us or our communities. Once again it will be Deacons, the Pine and other working class districts – certainly not the gated communities where the real crime is.

    Like

  39. Hal Austin January 25, 2018 at 4:53 PM #

    How can calling a police officer ‘ignorant’ be a criminal offence, and it is not to so call the prime minister? Is it only an offence to call an on duty officer ‘ignorant’, or does it also apply to an off duty officer?
    Whose decision was it to prosecute an alleged offender for this offence? Is it similarly an offence to call a teacher ‘ignorant’, or a bus driver, or a civil servant?

    Like

  40. Hal Austin February 3, 2018 at 5:04 PM #

    Hal Austin January 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM #

    Hal Austin January 25, 2018 at 4:53 PM #

    Some of us have been pleading for a public discussion about law and order for years, when the current attorney general was still in short trousers.
    There sis no fundamental difference in policing in London, Paris, Toronto, New York, Sydney, Rio or any big multi-racial society. Barbados is good at imitating these ‘developed’ societies.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: