The Club Debate: Where should we draw the line on player behaviour?

Poor player behaviour – and its impact on the participation levels of both players and officials – has been in the spotlight in recent seasons, leading to the introduction of Law 42 by the MCC ahead of the 2018 campaign, empowering umpires to apply run penalties and banish extreme offenders from the field.

We know we can’t overstep the mark, but is there a consensus as to where that line is? Furthermore, is the Spirit of Cricket an archaic concept or an aspect of the game we’re morally bound to preserve?

Blurred & enemy lines

“The Spirit of Cricket is essential to the game,” opines Peter Frost, director of cricket at Harpenden CC. “It’s something all clubs should value highly. Parents encourage their children to play cricket due to the standards they set while playing. It needs to be continually prioritised and explained to players.”

With succession planning a constant worry for many league and club committees, it’s regrettable that energy must be expended on policing spats. “The Hertfordshire league have worked tirelessly over the last few years to reduce verbals and dissent towards umpires,” adds Frost. “The league has a very difficult job maintaining those standards; it’s taking more of their time, which shows standards are deteriorating.”

If teams were incentivised to make the right on-field calls – such as via a ‘fairness’ league table, based on the marks awarded by opposing captains – would that help to address poor umpiring and abject player behaviour? #ClubCrickethttps://t.co/pITZkiRCp9

— Wisden (@WisdenCricket) July 4, 2019

We’d like to believe that most club cricketers would prefer to spend their Saturday in an amiable environment, so why is animosity between sides so commonplace? A Lancashire Knockout Cup game was abandoned in May after a batsman allegedly head-butted the bowler after he was dismissed. In New Zealand, a playing-umpire reportedly suffered a broken nose after being kicked in the head by an opposing player. A match in the North Wales Cricket League was halted in 2018 after two players fought when the batsman refused to walk. In another incident last year, a club cricketer head-butted the standing umpire, dislodging one of his teeth, before being slapped with a 17-match suspension, with the same league structure reporting that a bat had been thrown at an official in a different match.

Of course, these are extreme cases of on-field violence, but what about the habitual ‘mental disintegration’? Is that an acceptable component of the game? “There’s no clear line,” says James Tomson, performance analyst at Tamworth CC and Warwickshire, and second-teamer for the former. “What’s encouragement and what’s sledging? As soon as it becomes personal that’s unacceptable. I believe recording how many times a batsman has played and missed is OK, but some don’t. It’s very subjective and needs clarifying.”

Recently, a teammate of mine angered an opposing batsman – and many of his own team – with a bombardment of chirps, which led to a minor confrontation. His comments didn’t get personal, but I stood at slip pondering whether such behaviour is damaging to the game at large.

So, where does this conflict stem from? Is it the intensity of league cricket? Or is the game suffering the ill-effects of our midweek stresses? While many friendly cricket teams used to ‘drink back the fixture’ after a mismatch on the field, post-match sociability between sides is also on the wane. Whatever the reason, there is a general sense that things are getting worse.

Cricket is all too aware of the difficulties in establishing a one-size-fits-all rulebook, but while leniency towards wides understandably differs from one level to the next, rules on player behaviour must surely be universal – though, as Horn concedes, “We should have neutral umpires at all levels of grassroots cricket, but it’s a big ask”. In Hertfordshire, for example, Law 42 can only be exercised by a non-playing umpire, meaning the bottommost leagues fall outside its jurisdiction. Guidelines exist on what constitutes each of the four levels of sanction, but we’re some way off widespread usage and understanding.

While substandard umpiring will always ruffle feathers, perhaps it’s time the players themselves raised a finger to underhand tactics and insulting language, to help foster an environment worthy of a precious day of leisure. Otherwise, we’re in danger of becoming our own worst enemy.

Your views on last month’s Club Debate:

READ THE DEBATE

What factors should govern team selection?

“I dream of having a need for a selection process. Unfortunately, like many teams at the lower end of the food chain, getting enough bodies to fill available places is the start and end of it. Add in personalities and it becomes a minefield. Remind me why we do this again?” Warnham CC – via Twitter

“I’ve played with plenty of players who are too good for the team they were in, and didn’t want to test themselves at a higher level. It often meant players like myself – while not on their level – were spending 45 overs in the field, batting No.11 (that part was deserved!)” Andrew Watson – via Twitter

#ClubCricketSelectionExcuses

“He has to play because he cuts the outfield”
“His wife makes cracking sandwiches and is the best baker in the club”
“He can’t drive when it gets dark, so has to play at home”
“He sponsors the Player of the Year award” Steve Dolman – via Twitter

“I once played in a match where an opposing player had to bat high up the order, despite being a bowler, as he was tagged and on a curfew!” Hector Cappelletti – via Twitter