Tony BeccaONCE UPON a time cricket was known as a gentleman's game. In those days, the fielders, all of them, applauded a batsman when he got to 50 and when he got to a century, the captain of the batting team was greeted with handclaps when he walked out to bat. Most importantly, fielders hardly ever appealed for a catch when they knew the batsman had not touched the ball or they had not taken the catch.
Times have changed, however.
While some still applaud a batsman on reaching a century, hardly anyone bothers to do so when he reaches his 50. Hardly anyone bothers to welcome the opposing captain and, most importantly, based on the number of appeals for catches when the ball obviously did not touch the bat, far from being a gentleman, almost every fielder is now a cheat.
Cricket has changed, no question about it and it has changed so much that there are now codes to guide the behaviour of the players on the field; there are match referees to ensure that the players conform; and, there are fines and suspensions for those who do not.
SEHWAG FINED
During the last Test match between West Indies and India at the Antigua Recreation Ground in St. John's for example, Virender Sehwag was fined 20 per cent of his match fee for excessive appealing and based on the code which says that a bowler should look at the umpire when he is appealing to him, based on the fact the Sehwag did not do that and celebrated with his colleagues without even looking at the umpire, he deserved to have been fined.
During that same Test match, however, on the previous day, Brian Lara, obviously not agreeing with the umpires' decision, wagged his finger at umpire Asad Raul as if chastising him. He then angrily grabbed the ball out of Raul's hands and although his behaviour was discussed at the end of the day's play during a meeting involving match referee Jeff Crowe, umpires Raul and Simon Taufel and captains Lara and Rahul Dravid, he was not fined even one cent. In fact, according to Crowe, "everyone went away feeling pleased."
The question to Crowe is this: What were they, including the umpires, pleased about?
RESPECT
Was it that a captain had no respect for the umpires and was bold enough to show it? Was it that the captain of the West Indies had no respect for the umpires and was bold enough to show it? Or was it that they were pleased that Lara, one of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game, took the time to sit with them and discuss the matter?
Some may say that while the code of ethics specifically addresses some things, it does not address others; that while it addresses appeals, it does not address disrespect for the umpires and they may be right.
That fact of the matter, however, is this: Lara's behaviour was worse, much worse, than Sehwag's. That kind of behaviour, and especially so by a captain, is what can destroy the very foundation of the game.
If those with the responsibility for the development of the game are not careful, that is an example to school cricketers and to club cricketers that can destroy the game and unless there is one rule for some and one for others, Lara should have paid for it.
It does not seem fair that Lara, a captain at that, an icon at that, should have got away with such blatant disrespect for an umpire and that Sehwag, a part-time bowler celebrating a rare wicket, should have had to pay for committing a far less sin for doing something which comes natural to many bowlers.
Lara may feel that he was justified and others may feel that he was justified. The fact is, however, nothing justifies dealing with an umpire in that manner.
On top of that, Lara is one of the greats of the game and his influence is such that he owes it to the game to set an example, a good example, all the time.
