Consistency needed

THE match referee is the one who calls the shots these days, and this is not a good advertisement for the game at all. I am not trying to pass judgment on the integrity of the match referees serving on the panel of the International Cricket Council, but simply expressing my concern at the rapid deterioration in the behaviour of the players.

Who would have believed that cricket, once a gentleman's game, would come to such a state. Who is to blame for the present state of affairs? The match referee may not be a policeman, but he is acting like one, punishing the players but surprisingly sparing the umpires. There is absolutely no consistency in the manner in which the match referees judge an offence on the field.

Different yardsticks have been applied to hand out fines and suspension to the players and I am sorry to say that the players from the sub-continent have always been marked by certain match referees.

Take the latest instance involving Sourav Ganguly. Let me, at the outset, make it clear that I am not at all supporting Ganguly's act of showing the bat to the umpire even as the bowler appealed for leg-before. It may have been an instinctive reaction by Ganguly and it certainly did not deserve evoking the kind of response it did from Cammie Smith, who always gets posted for series' involving India.

I would like to know where the ICC draws a line to decide what constitutes breach of code of conduct on the field. Can you penalise Ganguly for just showing his bat and indicating that he had played the ball? What about a Glenn McGrath or Brett Lee mouthing abuses and getting away with it? Can you explain that?

Most of the match referees have been inconsistent and I have many reasons to believe that Cammie Smith heads the list. I don't want to go into the specifics, but I suspect that he becomes very harsh when dealing with the Indian cricketers. How come the same match referee was so lenient against the Australians when they last visited India and is so happy to penalise the Indians?

I understand that the pressures of international cricket sometimes bring the ugly side of a player into the open. But then what of the umpires, why is it that incompetent umpiring is not penalised despite repeated instances? Why should the players suffer from umpiring mistakes?

With so much at stake these days, and cricket now a profession more than just a game for the players, it is obvious that one will react when dealt with unfairly. Of course, indiscipline should be dealt with strictly, but then the umpire should also be judged accordingly. And also the match referee.

Is cricket all about winning and winning at any cost? So it seems. Going by the awful player behaviour and the increasing role of the match referee, I am afraid the game is fast losing its image. The scandals that rocked the sport did contribute towards weaning some of the youngsters away, but the petulance showed on the field by most of the current players certainly cannot be condoned as part of professionalism that has come to dominate cricket.

Professionalism cannot be about glaring at and abusing the opponent. Neither about showing dissent. I know the match referee has a responsible role to play, but it is a matter of deep concern that things have come to such a stage where players have to be subjected to scrutiny for every little act on the field.

It is sad to see the game being played with such fierce professionalism, for the smiles are vanishing from the faces on the field; the spirit is missing from the ranks; the respect for each other is being replaced by hostility. There is too much competition and it seems like war out there in the middle.

I am worried about the spirit of the game dying a fast death. I can't imagine a fielder recalling a batsman just because he thinks the game is too competitive.

There is so much money, and this is a major factor influencing the behaviour of the players. Or is it the pressure of performing that makes a player look at his opponent with such aggression.

I know the umpires would make a mistake or two and the players would get a few bad decisions, but that should not affect their behaviour on the field. I fully support the ICC in its drive to make the players realise their responsibilities, but then they must also look at the quality of the match referees and the umpires.

The match referees sometime tend to exercise their authority too harshly. They are quick to act when a batsman shows his bat, but choose to ignore time-wasting tactics, abusive language and excessive appealing. I get a feeling that the match referees talk too much and do too little, unless there is a Cammie Smith penalising a Sourav Ganguly. Such an act can affect the course of the game and the morale of the side. Fortunately for India, the team showed a lot of character by winning the match quite convincingly in the absence of its captain.

The administrators have a duty to ensure there is discipline and fairplay on the field, but efforts should be made to discipline the match referees too. There are too many of them just floating around. The match referees have the right to deal with erring players strictly, but the ICC should also deal with incompetent match referees harshly. If a player can be suspended, why not a match referee when he makes mistakes by adopting different yardsticks - penalising Ganguly and not McGrath or Slater or Lee.

I know the job of the umpires has become difficult with time. The pressure comes from the crowd and from the players. At some grounds, the giant screens add to the umpires' problems, but then technology has to be used to its best effect. Technology not only helps in highlighting the mistakes of the umpires, but also brings into focus the gestures by the players.

Here, I think the players have to act in a far more responsible manner. So far, the players have found a reason to defend excessive appealing, acts of dissent etc. by claiming these to be part of being a professional. It is time they took off this false veil and acted like gentlemen. After all, isn't cricket a gentleman's sport?