[Full text below]
England’s indignation at ‘The Butler Incident’ at
Edgbaston last week feels a little bit like Australia’s indignation at ‘The
Broad Happening’ at Trent Bridge last summer – an appeal of ‘Foul Play!’
directed at The Spirit of Cricket itself. That nebulous, indefinable arbiter of
fairness which causes such consternation in the game at all levels.
The situation is muddied here by the difference
between the Laws of Cricket, which govern us all from village green upwards,
and the ICC playing conditions, which govern internationals.
Spot the difference: MCC Law 42.15 “The bowler is
permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the
non-striker.” ICC playing condition 42.11 “The bowler is permitted, before
releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing,
to attempt to run out the non-striker.”
Senanayake’s front foot had landed before he turned
round and knocked the bails off. In a one day game for club or county, Butler
would not have been out.
That in itself is daft. Why are they different? Anyone
think of a reason? I’d love to hear it.
Despite this pointless ambiguity, the ruling on the
main issue is very clear. If the non-striker is out of his ground and the
bowler legally breaks the wicket, he’s out. There really isn’t a lot to argue
about.
Except some people think that to enforce this rule is
the depraved act of a dishonourable lowlife, a crime against the game, worthy
only of contempt. There’s no shortage of this opinion among cricket’s retired
professional classes. Though some might say that grizzled ex-pros who think
nicking off and not walking is an inalienable right, are perhaps not best
placed to pontificate on the game’s ethics.
I nearly didn’t write about this, because pretty much
everyone has already pronounced their considered opinion on it, one way or the
other.
But then I hit upon a new angle: the unconsidered
opinion. The uncluttered perspective. The pure judgement of the unbiased
witness, unclouded by prior knowledge, unencumbered by the baggage of
tradition.
My wife, as I may have mentioned, does not like
cricket. She views it primarily as my feeble excuse to avoid weekend family
time and dog walking. Her brain, usually sharp and analytical, instantly
switches off when it comes to cricket. She is stubbornly ignorant of the rules.
I showed her ‘The Butler Incident’. This was her response:
“So if he goes past that white line and the bowler-man hits the sticks with the
ball, he’s out, is that right? Well he’s out then. How could he not be out? Of
course he is. What’s all the fuss about?”
She paused, as if thinking deeply on some overlooked
subtlety, before adding: “If you’re watching the rest of this, I’m off to bed.”
So there it is. If we don’t like it, we’d better
change it, because as it stands, it’s pretty cut and dried.
- ends 484 words -
No comments:
Post a Comment